Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01148-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN E. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN D. DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

1:16-cv-01148-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION DIRECTED AT 

THE WARDEN OF R.J. DONOVAN 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

(ECF NOS. 8, 15, 19, & 24)

John Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on August 5, 2016. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction (ECF No. 7), and no other parties have appeared.1 

Plaintiff filed three motions (ECF Nos. 8, 19, & 24) that all essentially asked for either 

safe keeping or return of Plaintiff’s personal and legal property, as well as a motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s denial of one of the three motions (ECF No. 15). On January 23, 

 

1

The Office of the Attorney General appeared only to respond one of the motions for 

injunctive relief. It did not appear on behalf of any defendants. (ECF No. 11, p. 1 n. 1).

Case 1:16-cv-01148-DAD-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 4
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

2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal his motions for injunctive relief, which the Court 

construes as a motion to withdraw. (ECF No. 27).

According to Plaintiff, he wishes to withdraw his motions for injunctive relief regarding 

his legal and personal property that was being withheld by the California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility and California State Prison Corcoran, because he has now received what 

appears to be all of his legal property. The Court grant will grant Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw 

his motions for injunctive relief. Because Plaintiff is asking to withdraw the underlying motion 

for injunctive relief, the Court will treat the motion for reconsideration as withdrawn as well.

It is unclear whether the request for withdrawal extends to Plaintiff’s request for an 

injunction directed at the warden of the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (ECF No. 19). 

Plaintiff has alleged that his legal property, as well as a religious chain and medallion, were taken 

by a sergeant at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Among other things, Plaintiff asks for return 

of the property, as well as to be allowed to keep all of his legal and religious items on his person 

at all times. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw states that Plaintiff has received what appears to be all 

of his legal property, so it appears that portion of the injunction request has been resolved. 

However, Plaintiff does not mention his religious chain and medallion, or his request to be 

allowed to keep his legal and religious items on his person at all times. To the extent that these 

requests have not been withdrawn, they will be denied. The Court will also deny the request for 

an extension of time to respond to the screening order, because Plaintiff has already responded to 

the screening order (ECF No. 25).

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

the merits and 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.” Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). “A preliminary 

injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of right. In each case, courts 

must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the 

granting or withholding of the requested relief. In exercising their sound discretion, courts of 

equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary 

Case 1:16-cv-01148-DAD-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/24/17 Page 2 of 4
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

remedy of injunction.” Id. at 24 (citations and quotations omitted). An injunction may only be 

awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Id. at 22. 

Additionally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has 

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy 

Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a 

party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or 

other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to 

defend.”). 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 v. INS, 753 F.2d 

719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive 

relief must be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” 

their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active 

concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C).

Plaintiff’s remaining injunction requests will be denied because Plaintiff has failed to 

satisfy the standard for a preliminary injunction, and because the Court does not currently have 

jurisdiction over the parties Plaintiff is requesting the injunction against. Plaintiff has directed his 

injunction request at non-parties (J. Beard and S. Kernan), and he asks for relief that is factually 

unrelated to the underlying case (See ECF Nos. 16 & 25). This case is proceeding on a claim for 

failure to provide religious meals against defendants who worked at California State Prison 

Corcoran. The remaining injunction requests involve return of a religious chain and medallion 

and Plaintiff’s request to keep all of his religious items and legal documents on his person at all 

time, and are aimed at non-parties who work at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. 

Additionally, even if Plaintiff did direct this injunction towards a party, and even if the 

request did relate to this case, there would almost assuredly be safety concerns which would 

prevent Plaintiff from being able to keep his legal and religious items on his person at all times. 

Accordingly, to the extent the remaining injunction requests have not been withdrawn, they will 

be denied.

Case 1:16-cv-01148-DAD-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/24/17 Page 3 of 4
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

4

If Plaintiff believes he has additional claims he may file a separate case alleging those 

claims.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his motions for 

injunctive relief is GRANTED. (ECF No. 27)

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos 8, 15, 24) are hereby withdrawn by the 

Plaintiff.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction 

directed at the warden of R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (ECF No. 19) was not withdrawn, it 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01148-DAD-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/24/17 Page 4 of 4