Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00546/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00546-6/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 - 10cv0546

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUBERT DYMITR HARASZEWSKI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv0546-LAB (PCL)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

vs.

LISA BRANNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

By an ex parte application filed nunc pro tunc to December 2, 2011, Plaintiff

Haraszewski requested injunctive relief against unnamed employees of Mule Creek State

Prison because he believed they might, in the future, take his legal documents or other

property. The application explained that he feared retribution following an investigation, and

expressed his worry that officers would throw his documents away.

The application also notified the Court Haraszewski had been moved to administrative

segregation, offering this information as an explanation in case he needed an extension of

time for some purpose in the future. He does not require an extension of time at this point,

however.

The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over officers of the Mule Creek State Prison,

which is located in the Eastern District of California. The officers are not before the Court.

See Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that a federal court

Case 3:10-cv-00546-LAB-PCL Document 56 Filed 12/09/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10cv0546

may only enjoin parties over which it has personal jurisdiction, and “may not attempt to

determine the rights of persons before the court”). 

Even if the Court had personal jurisdiction, the request for injunctive relief is unripe.

Haraszewski, even by his own account, is no in any imminent danger of being deprived of

any of his rights. His prediction that this might happen is insufficient to support a grant of

injunctive relief. See Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (including

among the requirements for injunctive relief that the threat of injury be “actual and imminent,

not conjectural or hypothetical”).

The application is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 9, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00546-LAB-PCL Document 56 Filed 12/09/11 Page 2 of 2