Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05633/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05633-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. WOODS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05633-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING 

HIS REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND 

GRANTING HIS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO JOINT 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison - Sacramento 

(CSP-Sacramento), filed this civil rights action alleging multiple claims involving various Pelican 

Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) prison officials, including a claim of deliberate indifference to his 

safety needs stemming from a June 9, 2011 incident in which he was attacked by another prisoner 

when he was incarcerated at PBSP. 

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions, including: (1) his motion entitled, “Ex-Parte 

Motion for Stay/Reconsideration of All Previous Motions for Appointment of Counsel/Injunction 

to Be Appropriately Housed According to Classification Status With All Legal Case 

Files/Property” (Dkt. 76); (2) his request for an extension of time to file his opposition to 

Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 76); and (3) his recently-filed motion 

entitled, “Ex-Parte Motion for Assignment of Counsel” (Dkt. 92).

I. RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF REQUEST 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel based on his 

failure to identify exceptional circumstances warranting an appointment under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1). Dkt. 16; see also Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (reciting 

standard for the appointment counsel). The Court then denied Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration of that ruling. Dkt. 49. Plaintiff has now filed two other requests for appointment 

of counsel, which the Court construes as his renewed motion for reconsideration. Dkts. 76, 92. 

“Reconsideration [of a prior order] is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 

Case 4:13-cv-05633-YGR Document 93 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing for 

reconsideration. Nor is the Court otherwise persuaded that exceptional circumstances are present 

that warrant the appointment of counsel. In addition, the Court has since been informed that 

Plaintiff has obtained access to his legal property as of July 28, 2015. Dkt. 92-1 at 2; Maiorino 

Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

Dkts. 76, 92.

II. MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff has filed a motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. 76. He has also filed a document 

entitled, “Ex-Parte Supplem[e]ntal/Addendum Motion to Ex-Parte Motion for 

Stay/Reconsideration of All Previously Filed Motions for Appointment of Counsel/Injunction to 

Be Appropriately Housed-As Classified-With All Legal Property,” which the Court construes to 

be a memorandum in support of his motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. 80. Specifically, Plaintiff 

seeks injunctive relief concerning his housing assignment at CSP-Sacramento. Id. at 1-7. 

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is against CSP-Sacramento prison officials, who are not 

Defendants in this lawsuit. See id.

The decision of whether to grant or deny a motion for preliminary injunction is a matter of 

the district court’s discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The standard for assessing a motion for preliminary injunction is set forth in 

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., __U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008). “Under Winter, 

plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) they are likely to succeed on the 

merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the 

balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.” 

Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009). To enforce an injunction 

against an individual or entity, the district court must have personal jurisdiction over them. In re 

Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 94 F.3d 539, 545 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied because this 

Case 4:13-cv-05633-YGR Document 93 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court lacks the requisite personal jurisdiction, stating:

The Court does not have jurisdiction over any prison officials at 

CSP-Sacramento, since they are not parties to this action. See In re 

Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 94 F.3d 539, 545 (9th Cir. 1996). “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.” 

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 

(9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because Plaintiff’s request for 

injunctive relief concerns issues not raised in this lawsuit and 

officials from another prison who are not defendants in this case, the 

Court should deny the motion.

Dkt. 83 at 2; see also Dkt. 81 at 6-7. This Court agrees with Defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief (Dkt. 76) is DENIED because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over any 

prison officials at CSP-Sacramento, who are not Defendants in this action.

1

 See In re Estate of 

Ferdinand Marcos, 94 F.3d at 545 (An injunction against a party over whom the court lacks 

personal jurisdiction would be futile because the court would be powerless to enforce it.).

The Court notes that if Plaintiff wishes to pursue any claims regarding his conditions of 

confinement at CSP-Sacramento (which is not in this judicial district), he may do so by filing a 

separate civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

after exhausting his administrative remedies. 

III. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

Plaintiff has filed “Motion for Stay” (Dkt. 76), which the Court construes as a request for 

an extension of time in which to file his opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Having read and considered Plaintiff’s request, and good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s 

request for an extension of time is GRANTED. 

The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion for 

Summary Judgment will be extended up to and including sixty (60) days from the date of this 

Order.

 

1 Again, the Court notes that Plaintiff has since obtained access to his legal property as of 

July 28, 2015. Dkt. 92-1 at 2; Maiorino Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A. In his recently-filed motion for 

appointment of counsel, he no longer complains that he is without access to his legal property 

because he concedes to receiving such property as of July 28, 2015. Dkt. 92-1 at 2; see generally 

Dkts. 92, 92-1.

Case 4:13-cv-05633-YGR Document 93 Filed 10/29/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants shall file a joint reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the date 

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 76 and 92.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

October 29, 2015

Case 4:13-cv-05633-YGR Document 93 Filed 10/29/15 Page 4 of 4