Opinion
08-26-2013
FREDERICK WAYNE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(Document 20)
Plaintiff Frederick Wayne Smith ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's March 11, 2013, First Amended Complaint is currently awaiting screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on October 11, 2011.
On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, "Emergency Injunction A Temporary Restraining Order." A. LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 688-90 (2008) (citations and quotation omitted). Instead, in every case, the court "must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 17 (2008) (citation and quotation omitted). The instant motion requires the court to determine whether Plaintiff has established the following: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 17 (citation omitted). "[S]serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met." Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d. 1045, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2010).
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 376. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the movant is entitled to relief. Id. B. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's motion seeks proper medical care and religious meals from "Secretary Beard and D. Paramo, Warden of Donovan State Prison" in San Diego. Mot. 1. It appears that Plaintiff was transferred to Donovan State Prison on January 27, 2013, and since his transfer, he contends that he has not received adequate medical care and/or Kosher meals.
The Court's jurisdiction, however, is limited to the parties before it in this action and to the claims in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint relates to an alleged failure to protect claim arising out of a May 27, 2010, attack while incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. See e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998) ("[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.") (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) ("[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, because Plaintiff seeks relief related to different events and different defendants than those at issue in the First Amended Complaint, the Court does not have jurisdiction, in the context of this action, to grant the relief requested.
Plaintiff's motion is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE