# Mariscal

> District Court, E.D. California · August 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11437614

## Case

- **Full name:** Laduan Brown v. Mariscal, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 14, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11437614

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LADUAN BROWN, Case No. 1:26-cv-01008-FJS (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO
13 v. ACTION

14 MARISCAL, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
15 Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 8)
16
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
18 Plaintiff LaDuan Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has not yet
20 screened the complaint.
21 On June 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 8.) In the
22 motion, Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction against “unknown Kern Valley State Prison”
23 officials and all defendants “to prevent further irreparable harm, retaliation, murder, and
24 attempted murder against Plaintiff.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff does not otherwise specify what injunctive
25 relief he seeks. Plaintiff argues that a preliminary injunction is necessary because the unknown
26 Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) officials are utilizing unlawful cellphones and virtual reality
27 to retaliate against Plaintiff for litigating this action. Plaintiff includes a lengthy recitation of the
28 alleged harms inflicted and attempted by these unknown individuals, against Plaintiff and “all
1 citizens of society,” including blackmailing Plaintiff’s friends, family, and potential employers,
2 controlling the bodies or minds of individuals to force them to perform actions ranging from
3 crashing their own cars to committing rape, directly inflicting physical harm to Plaintiff, and
4 hacking into Plaintiff’s cell phone to steal his money. (See ECF No. 8.)
5 I. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
6 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
7 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a
8 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
9 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
10 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction
11 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation
12 omitted).
13 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
14 preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
15 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983);
16 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.
17 464, 471 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power
18 to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C.
19 § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the court find the “relief
20 [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the
21 Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
22 right.”
23 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the court jurisdiction over prison
24 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v.
25 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties
26 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555
27 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
28
1 II. DISCUSSION
2 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The
3 court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental
4 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s
5 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to
6 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
7 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
8 As noted above, the court has not yet screened the complaint. As such, this action does not
9 yet proceed on any cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant
10 has yet made an appearance. Thus, the court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over any
11 named defendants or other individuals who might be involved in the allegations set forth in
12 Plaintiff’s motion. The court further notes that Plaintiff specifically requests a preliminary
13 injunction against “unknown” KVSP officials, and the court cannot determine at this time
14 whether it may exercise jurisdiction over such a broad and unspecified group of individuals.
15 Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is directed at unknown KVSP officials,
16 but the complaint names thirty-one defendants, only three of whom are employed at KVSP. (ECF
17 No. 1 at 4–7.)
18 Finally, Plaintiff’s motion fails to specify what relief is sought. Pursuant to the Prison
19 Litigation Reform Act, any relief granted must be “narrowly drawn, extend[] no further than
20 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and [be] the least intrusive means necessary
21 to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff’s motion does
22 not provide any information as to the scope or type of relief Plaintiff seeks, and the court cannot
23 simply grant a request for unspecified and unlimited injunctive relief.
24 III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
25 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a district
26 judge to this action.
27 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
28 injunction, (ECF No. 8), be DENIED.
] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge
2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within fourteen
3 | (4) days after being served with a copy of these findings and recommendations, a party may file
4 | written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
5 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages.
6 | Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be considered. Exhibits shall not be filed
7 | with objections, but they may be referenced by the document and page number. No new exhibits
8 | may be filed with objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
9 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
10 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to
11 || the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
12 || Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment.
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Vy 2 7
15 Dated: _ August 14, 2026 □□
16 UNITED STATESMA dSTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11437614. Public record. Not legal advice.