Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01361/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01361-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Anti
Defendant
E. Franklin
Defendant
Damian E. Griffin
Plaintiff
L. Hartin
Defendant
Kristina Hill
Defendant
David Long
Defendant
K. Washington
Defendant

Document Text:

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

DAMIAN E. GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAVID LONG, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-01361-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 6)

)

)

I. Background

Plaintiff Damian E. Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed November 30, 2015, is currently 

before the Court. (ECF No. 6.) No defendants have been served or appeared, and thus no 

response is necessary. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff seeks for the Court to issue an order to show cause as to why a preliminary 

injunction should not issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) enjoining the 

following employees at the California City Correctional Facility (“CCCF”): (1) David Long, 

Warden; (2) Richard Anti, Chief Deputy Warden; (3) Kristina Hill, Senior Accounting Officer 

Supervisor; (4) E. Franklin, Associate Warden Business Services; (5) K. Washington, 

Case 1:15-cv-01361-DAD-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/15/16 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

Accounting Trainee; and (6) L. Hartin, Accounting Staff. Plaintiff seeks for these CCCF staff 

persons, and their successors-in-office, agents, and employees and all other persons acting in 

concert and participation with them from deducting funds from Plaintiff’s prison account without 

statutory authority. Plaintiff also seeks for $102.83 to be refunded to him, which was deducted 

on June 9, 2015. Plaintiff seeks for the injunction against any deductions on his prison account to 

continue until the Court rules on this case. 

A. Standard

“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).

As an initial matter, “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). 

B. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction ordering prison officials to cease deductions from 

his prison account. However, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for this relief. The Court is 

required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity 

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or 

any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

In this matter, the Court will issue in conjunction with this order a screening order 

dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for the failure to state a claim. Although, out of an abundance of 

Case 1:15-cv-01361-DAD-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/15/16 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

caution, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend, this case does not yet proceed on any 

cognizable claims. No defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an 

appearance. At this juncture, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the prison officials, and it 

cannot issue an order requiring them to take any action. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons explained above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction, filed November 30, 2015 (ECF No. 6), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01361-DAD-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 3