Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00003-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joey Alvarez
Plaintiff
Rodriguez
Defendant
Silva
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

Plaintiff Joey Alvarez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed February 26, 

2020.

I.

DISCUSSION

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). For each form of relief sought in federal court, 

Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield 

v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under 

threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and 

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the 

JOEY ALVAREZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SILVA, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00003-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE 

DENIED

[ECF No. 50]

Case 1:19-cv-00003-DAD-SAB Document 51 Filed 02/27/20 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

defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 

provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall 

extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or 

plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such 

relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, 

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. '

3626(a)(1)(A). Thus, the federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue equitable 

orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violations which 

form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Steel Co. v. 

Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (1998). 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must be denied. First, the relief that Plaintiff seeks is 

different in kind from that set forth in the operative complaint. This action is proceeding against 

Defendants Silva and Rodriguez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 

However, the instant motion is based on retaliation that has allegedly taken place after this action was 

filed by different individuals. It is appropriate to grant a preliminary injunction providing 

“intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally. De Beers Consol. 

Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court should not issue an injunction when the relief 

sought is not of the same character and the injunction deals with a matter lying wholly outside the 

issues in the underlying action. Id. In addition, it appears Plaintiff is seeking an order directed to a 

non-party. The Court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would require 

directing parties not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States Immigration & 

Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“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 

 

1 Defendant Rodriguez has not yet been served with process, and an order to show cause why this Defendant should not be 

dismissed is pending. (ECF No. 48.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00003-DAD-SAB Document 51 Filed 02/27/20 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

attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). To the extent Plaintiff is asserting a 

retaliation claim against individuals not named in this action, such claim must be brought in a separate 

action. It cannot provide a basis for a preliminary injunction in this action. 

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction, filed February 26, 2020, be denied. 

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 

being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00003-DAD-SAB Document 51 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3