Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307-14/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELDON RAY NEWSOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-JAM-JDP (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED

ECF No. 43

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Plaintiff Sheldon Ray Newsome has filed a motion for preliminary injunction and seeks an 

order directing non-party prison officials at the California Medical Facility to stop their recent 

acts of retaliation against him for filing lawsuits. ECF No. 43 at 11. I recommend that the 

motion be denied because it is based on allegations unrelated to the claims in this suit. 

Legal Standards

A federal district court may issue injunctive relief only if the court has both 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 determine the rights of persons not before it. See Hitchman Coal & 

Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 54 Filed 06/03/21 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

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 Rule 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). 

“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, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs 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). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, the injunctive relief 

sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC 

v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief 

based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 

injunction.”). A permanent injunction may be granted only after a final hearing on the merits. 

See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir.1993) (“As a general rule, 

a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been established . . . .”).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 

litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 

“[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 

correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 

necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). As the Ninth Circuit has previously 

observed, the PLRA places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive 

relief to inmates, and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts 

and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or 

approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” 

Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 54 Filed 06/03/21 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

Analysis

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants Dirisu and Lotersztain orchestrated his 

transfer to a different prison in retaliation for his filing of grievances. ECF No. 18 at 3-4. 

Plaintiff also claims that defendant Lotersztain was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 

needs. Id. at 10-11. The conduct complained of in the complaint occurred in 2017. Id. at 3. By 

contrast, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction concerns acts of retaliation by non-party 

prison officials in 2020. See, e.g., ECF No. 43 at 2. A motion for preliminary injunction must 

relate to the allegations in the complaint. See De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 

212, 220 (1945) (holding that a preliminary injunction cannot address “a matter lying wholly 

outside the issues in the suit”); Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 

631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the 

complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). And the acts alleged in 

the motion do not appear to have restricted plaintiff’s access to the courts. In the months after he 

filed his motion, plaintiff submitted exhibits that related to his complaint, ECF No. 50, and a 

reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion, ECF No. 51. And, as best I can tell, plaintiff does 

not allege that his access to the courts has been restricted in any specific way. Thus, the Ninth 

Circuit’s exception to the relation requirement does not apply. See Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 

F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that, where a motion for injunctive relief relates to an 

inmate’s access to the courts, the relation requirement does not apply). 

Plaintiff’s motion should also be denied because it seeks to enjoin individuals who are not 

parties to this action. See Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“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.”). As defendants point out, none of the non-parties’ conduct is alleged to be connected to 

Dirisu or Lotersztain who, the parties agree, no longer work for the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation. ECF No. 43 at 17; ECF No. 49 at 3. 

For the above reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 

injunction, ECF No. 43, be denied.

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 54 Filed 06/03/21 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2021 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 54 Filed 06/03/21 Page 4 of 4