Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00138/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00138-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In this action, Plaintiff has stated claims against: (1) Defendant Lopez for pushing him

down a flight of stairs in violation of the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments; and (2) Defendants 

King, Walters, and Carter for having knowledge of the risks Defendant Lopez pose to Plaintiff 

and failing to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See Docs. 1, 8, 9, 10.)

Concurrent with the filing of this action, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for protective order, 

temporary restraining order, and for preliminary injunction "to prevent Defendant Jose Lopez's

physical abuse of plaintiff, by his physical attack on and intimidation of plaintiff." (Doc. 3.) 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are bound, in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an 

actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 

Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 

(1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear 

KENNETH R. HUSKEY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00138-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISERGARDING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. 3)

Case 1:15-cv-00138-JLT Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 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

the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the "relief 

[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal 

right."

While Plaintiff specifies that he is fearful of retaliation and further attack at the hands of 

Defendant Lopez, Plaintiff does not identify the relief he desires in his motion, in particular, 

Plaintiff does not specify what relief he desires to keep him safe from Defendant Lopez. Thus, 

the motion is not "narrowly drawn" and cannot be evaluated as to whether it is the least intrusive 

means necessary to correct the violation(s) Plaintiff complains of and is fearful will recur. 

Further, A[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@ 

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). 

AA 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 374 

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

entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has not made this 

showing. Moreover, a response to a request for preliminary injunction based upon claims such as 

those made by Plaintiff, requires a response from Defendants is crucical so that the Court can 

properly evaluate whether the relief sought by Plaintiff is narrowly tailored to achieve the 

objective.

Finally, though the Court has ordered service of the summons and complaint, the 

Defendants have not appeared in this action. AA 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. United States 

Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion cannot be 

properly addressed until Defendant Lopez and/or his supervisors have appeared and are parties to 

this action.

Case 1:15-cv-00138-JLT Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a general "protective order, temporary restraining 

order, and for preliminary injunction," filed on February 2, 2015 (Doc. 3), is HEREBY 

DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00138-JLT Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 3