Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00504/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00504-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LAKE,

CDCR #AF-8850,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN DANIEL PARAMO; 

JOHN DOES, WARDEN JOHN DOE, 

CSP-LAC; PROPERTY ROOM 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TRO/INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF No. 11)

I. Procedural History

On March 13, 2019, John Lake (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently housed in the 

California State Prison - Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”) located in Lancaster,

California, and proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) He later filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), along with a Motion to Appoint 

Counsel. (See ECF Nos. 4, 5.) On May 3, 2019, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Proceed IFP, DENIED his Motion to Appoint Counsel, and DISMISSED his 

Complaint for failing to state a claim. (See ECF No. 6 at 12-13.) Plaintiff was given 

Case 3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS Document 12 Filed 08/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS

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

thirty (30) days leave in which to file an amended pleading to correct the deficiencies of 

pleading identified in the Court’s Order. (Id.) 

That time has since passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended pleading. 

Instead, Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Extension of Time and Appointment of Counsel and 

Appointment of Investigator and Legal Runner.” (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Plaintiff also sought

“TRO/Injunctive relief.” (Id.) The Court GRANTED Plaintiff an extension of time to file 

his amended pleading, DENIED his request for appointment of counsel and/or an 

investigator, and DENIED his Motion for TRO. (ECF No. 9.) On July 29, 2019, 

Plaintiff filed another “Request for TRO/Injunctive Relief.” (ECF No. 11.)

II. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff’s motion is mostly incoherent and rambling but he appears to claim that 

he will be subject to “great bodily injury” if he is housed on the “A” yard and requests 

“federal protection housing.” (ECF No. 11 at 1-2.) 

Procedurally, 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). Pursuant to 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).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS Document 12 Filed 08/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS

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 action before the Court is currently closed in light of the Court’s May 3, 2019 

Order dismissing the action for failing to state a claim and there is no operative pleading. 

(See ECF No. 6.) No Defendant has been served. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief 

that would require the Court to presume jurisdiction over parties who have not appeared 

in this action nor do they appear to have been notified of this action. The Court cannot 

grant Plaintiff injunctive relief because it has no personal jurisdiction over CSP-LAC 

officials. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1), (d)(2); Murphy Bros., Inc., 526 U.S. at 350; 

Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727-28. A district court has no authority to grant relief in the form of 

a temporary restraining order or permanent injunction where it has no jurisdiction over 

the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal 

jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district ... court, without 

which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”) (citation and internal 

quotation omitted).

Substantively, “‘[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.” Glossip v. Gross, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-

37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 

(2008)). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just 

possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

As noted above, the Court has dismissed this entire action for failing to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted and thus, Plaintiff has not shown that he is 

likely to succeed on the merits.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED. (ECF No. 11.) 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS Document 12 Filed 08/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS

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

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, the Court: 

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for “TRO/Injunctive Relief” without prejudice (ECF 

No. 8).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS Document 12 Filed 08/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4