Minutes | Filed: August 03, 2026
| Entered: August 03, 2026
Wright v. CoreCivic, Inc. et al
Civil Rights: Other | Hawaii
1 - Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R) Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
EO: On August 1, 2026, Plaintiff Michael Wright ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, Monetary Relief, and Demand for Jury Trial ("Complaint") against CoreCivic, Inc., Tommy Johnson, Shawn Wead, Todd Thomas, Crystal Shanley, Aubrey Robles, Roberto Sebastian, and Baru Nale (collectively "Defendants"). ECF No. 1. That same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Motion for PI") against CoreCivic, Inc., Shawn Wead, and Tommy Johnson. ECF No. 2. However, the record contains no evidence that Plaintiff has served Defendants with the Complaint and summons or filed a waiver of service pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P."). See Montalvo v. Diaz, Case No. 3:19-cv-00363-CAB-JLB, 2019 WL 1242445, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019); Segovia v. Wilmington Fin., Case No. 2:15-cv-3150-CAS-AJW, 2015 WL 12697083, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015). Until service is effectuated or a waiver of service is obtained and filed, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. See Omni Cap. Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987); Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982). And the Court "may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court....The district court must... tailor the injunction to affect only those persons over which it has power." Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Motion for PI is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will not entertain any further motions for injunctive relief until Plaintiff has properly served Defendants or obtained and filed a waiver of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
Further, under the relevant provision of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), the Court "may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Thus, a motion for preliminary injunction cannot be decided until the parties to the action are served. See Bannister v. Ige, No. 20-00305 JAO-RT, 2020 WL 9751552, at *2 (D. Haw. July 15, 2020). Once Defendants are served, the parties are DIRECTED to schedule a status conference with either the undersigned or the assigned Magistrate Judge to discuss Plaintiff's further motion for injunctive relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(Judge SHANLYN A.S. PARK)(tl)