(PC) Dauwalder v. Atherton

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DANIEL DAUWALDER, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00523-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 13 v. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 J. ATHERTON, et al., (Doc. 20) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD [17] 18 Plaintiff Daniel Dauwalder is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. section 1983 . 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “An Injunctive Request for Cease of 22 Retaliation and Interference in Due Process by Prison Officials in California Correctional 23 Institute & Identify and Charge Culprits.” (Doc. 20.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing to be a 24 motion for injunctive relief and will recommend that it be denied. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Plaintiff’s Request 27 Plaintiff alleges his incoming mail from this Court and from defense counsel has been 1 “sending a brief to the Attorney General to show cooperation efforts towards maintaining a 2 professional integrity of this process” and advises he is “easily available” by phone. (Id. at 2.) 3 Plaintiff states he has consistently exercised his “right to grievance through the administrative 4 remedy w/no resolve,” and “CCI staff” continue to violate his rights by opening confidential 5 correspondence outside his presence. (Id.) He has “saved all tampered envelopes accompanied 6 w/documentation through both body-cam footage and 602 process.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends that 7 “CCI” attempted to transfer him to the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility on January 8 3, 2025, “where the C/Os who are involved in this lawsuit are employed.” (Id. at 3.) He states that 9 during the attempted transfer “staff attempted” to do so “w/o any of [his] legal paperwork from 10 this case,” and he advised them they were denying his “fluid access to the courts.” (Id.) Plaintiff 11 states he refused to be transferred because “there was no extraction order.” (Id. at 4.) 12 The Applicable Legal Standards 13 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 1 Winter 14 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 15 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 16 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 17 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 . 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 19 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 20 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 21 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 22 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 23 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 24 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 25 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation [26] 27 1 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 , 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 1 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 2 Federal right.” See also Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 333 (2000) (the PLRA “establishes 3 standards for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging conditions 4 at prison facilities”). 5 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 6 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. 7 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties 8 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 9 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 . 10 A “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the 11 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 12 persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A]n 13 injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ . . . 14 and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all possible 15 breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 16 Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727 , 728 n.1). 17 Analysis 18 The lack of personal jurisdiction is fatal to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. This 19 action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants 20 Atherton and Perez, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Davydov 21 and Garmendia. (See Doc. 11.) Those Defendants are employed at the California Substance 22 Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) in Corcoran, California (Doc. 12) and answered Plaintiff’s 23 complaint on January 31, 2025 (Doc. 21). Accordingly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over 24 Defendants Atherton, Davydov, Garmendia, and Perez. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727 . However, the 25 Court does not have personal jurisdiction over any individual at Plaintiff’s current facility, the 26 California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93. 27 Here, subject matter jurisdiction also precludes relief. 1 and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against SATF officials only. This case 2 does not involve any First Amendment access to courts, legal mail, or retaliation claims involving 3 those officials. The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the viable legal claims upon which this action 4 is proceeding: Eighth Amendment excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical 5 needs. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93 ; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 . To the extent Plaintiff wishes to 6 assert First Amendment violations concerning his constitutional rights under the First 7 Amendment against officials at CCI, he must assert those claims in a new lawsuit. See Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 20. They will not be heard in this action. 9 In sum, Plaintiff is not entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks. 10 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 11 Based on the foregoing, this Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request 12 for injunctive relief (Doc. 20) be DENIED. 13 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(l). Within 14 days 15 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 16 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 17 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages 18 without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 19 the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 20 the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 21 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 22 may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 24 may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 , 839 25 (9th Cir. 2014). [26] IT IS SO ORDERED. [27] Dated: July 8, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE