Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01217/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01217-3/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Gustavo Torres (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

August 4, 2014. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns allegations of deliberate indifference to his health and 

safety. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 8.) 

On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff also filed a document entitled “Order to Show Cause for An 

Preliminary injunction & A Temporary Restrain[in]g Order” (ECF No. 4, p. 1.) The document 

appears to be a proposed order to show cause and injunction against Defendant Waddel and other 

unnamed defendants for the Court’s signature. (ECF No. 4, p. 2.) Insofar as Plaintiff’s document is 

construed as a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the motion is 

deficient and shall be denied without prejudice to refiling. 

GUSTAVO TORRES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WADDEL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01217-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 4)

Case 1:14-cv-01217-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 3
2

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

The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a preliminary 

injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th 

Cir. 2001), and “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (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. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s proposed order does not establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits or 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor or 

that an injunction is in the public interest. Rather, the proposed order merely states that Defendants 

should be restrained from “[c]ausing more harm at the hands of cellmates.” (ECF No. 2, p. 2.) 

Additionally, “a court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has 

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 

U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). In this 

case, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it states a cognizable 

claim, no defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an appearance. At this 

juncture, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue an order 

requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39. 

Plaintiff has requested leave to amend and the Court will screen any amended complaint in due course 

after its filing. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction, filed on August 4, 2014, is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01217-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 1:14-cv-01217-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 3