Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02512/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02512-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10cv2512

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTIAN BRACAMONTES,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10-CV-2512-H (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[Doc. No. 28.]

vs.

CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT MOYA,

et al.

Defendants.

On December 3, 2010, Chrisitian Bracamontes (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging prison

officials at Centinela State Prison violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by

using excessive force against him on June 3, 2009, and by failing to provide medical attention,

conspiring and retaliating against him afterward. (Doc. No. 1 at 7-15.) Plaintiff also filed a

motion for preliminary injunctive relief under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. (Doc.

No. 4.) On January 14, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive

relief, noting that Plaintiff had not given notice of the motion to any Defendant as required by

Rule 65, and that Plaintiff’s motion failed to establish the imminent irreparable injury required

to support a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 7 at 7.) 

On July 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed another motion for injunctive relief pursuant to Rule

65. (Doc. No. 28.) For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.

Case 3:10-cv-02512-H-NLS Document 32 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10cv2512

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20

(citations omitted). An injunction “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the

plaintiff is entitled to relief.” See id. at 22 (quotation omitted). Moreover, “[s]peculative

injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary

injunction. A plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to establish

standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to

preliminary injunctive relief.” Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674

(9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, an injunction “binds only the following

who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise: (A) the parties; (B) the parties’

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (C) other persons who are in active

concert or participation with [them].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). In general, “[a] federal court

may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter

jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the

court.” Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). The court may not attempt to

determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell,

245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727-28.

B. Analysis

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State Prison - Los Angeles (CSP/LAC)

in Lancaster, California. (See Doc. No. 28 at 1.) Plaintiff’s motion alleges that various

correctional officers at CSP/LAC–not named as defendants in this litigation–are retaliating

against Plaintiff for filing his civil rights complaint. (Id. at 2-6.) Plaintiff seeks an injunction

against “anyone who has personal access to Plaintiff, inside any prison where he’s housed.”

Case 3:10-cv-02512-H-NLS Document 32 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10cv2512

(Id. at 9.) Plaintiff requests that his mail be delivered within the time limits set forth by the

CDCR regulations, that no deliberate harm be caused to his mail or living quarters, that no

inappropriate touching of Plaintiff’s body be committed by any guard, and that all future cell

searches be conducted within the scope of the CDCR regulations. (Id.) 

Based on a review of the current record, the Court determines that Plaintiff has not

shown sufficient evidence to meet the standards for a preliminary injunction. First, Plaintiff’s

motion for injunctive relief against parties not named in his complaint and not served in this

action does not comply with the notice requirements of Rule 65. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).

Secondly, the motion fails to establish that Plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm in the

absence of injunctive relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the alleged violations of the

CDCR regulations, should they occur in the future, would cause an irreparable injury.

Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a

preliminary injunction. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., 844 F.2d at 674. “[I]njunctive relief

is ‘to be used sparingly, and only in a clear and plain case.’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d

1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976)). Because

Plaintiff has not met the standards for a preliminary injunction, the Court DENIES his motion

for injunctive relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2011 ______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:10-cv-02512-H-NLS Document 32 Filed 08/03/11 Page 3 of 3