Fuller v. Granville et al

Filing 102

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction; Notice of Errata No. 1 (Doc. 54 ), and Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction; Notice of Errata No. 1 is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 08/10/2015. (REK)

1
2

JDN
WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Samuel Louis Fuller,

10
11

No. CV 14-0020-PHX-DGC (JFM)

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

12
13

Kari Jill Granville, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff Samuel Louis Fuller brought this pro se civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction; Notice
of Errata No. 1 (“Motion”). (Doc. 54.) The Court will deny the Motion.
I.

Background
In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff named as Defendants his court-appointed

defense attorney Granville, and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) Officers
Hadsall, Abbott, and Alger. In its screening Order, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a
claim of excessive force against Defendant Hadsall and dismissed the other claims and
Defendants. (Doc. 11.)
In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that MCSO’s Inmate Legal Services (“ILS”),
without his consent or direction, filed with the Court his First and Second Set of
Interrogatories and his First Request for Admissions.1 (Doc. 54 at 1.) Plaintiff states that

27
28

1

In a prior Order, the Magistrate Judge struck those discovery requests and
directed the filing a separate notice of service in accordance with Local Civil Rule 5.2.

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

he only requested ILS to forward copies of those documents to the Maricopa County
Attorney’s Office and he did not instruct ILS to file them with the Court. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff acknowledges the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 47) that parties are not to file with
the Court their disclosures or requests for disclosures, and he alleges that ILS is engaging
in a “campaign of harassment” by filing documents he has marked as “do not file.” (Id.
at 3-4.) Plaintiff contends that ILS is conducting this campaign of harassment in concert
with Defendant Hadsall, and that it is affecting his wherewithal to litigate the various
civil actions he has in this Court and is causing him psychological distress. (Id. at 3-4.)
Plaintiff asks the Court to order Rose Perry (A7879) in ILS to answer these allegations.
(Id. at 9.)
II.

Discussion
As a preliminary matter, a court may issue an injunction against a non-party only

where the non-party acts in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(d)(2). While Plaintiff alleges that ILS is acting in concert with Defendant
Hadsall, he has presented no evidence of joint action between Defendant Hadsall and
ILS, which precludes issuance of an injunction.
Alternatively, even if the Court could address Plaintiff’s request for relief, he fails
to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (movant must show he is likely to succeed on the
merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
that an injunction is in the public interest). First, it is not clear what relief Plaintiff seeks,
other than a response from Perry “that she either is without or within a lawful policy of
the State of Arizona to conduct business as only a ‘creeping thing’ would how; foxes like
squ[i]rr[e]ls like rats even like a parrots . . . must need be subdued.” (Doc. 54 at 9.)
Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief concerning his access to the courts,2 he must

26
27
28

(See Doc. 57.)
2
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is not related to his Fourth Amendment
excessive force claim; however, if a preliminary injunction concerns access to the courts,
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

submit evidence showing an “actual injury” resulting from a defendant’s actions. See
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (the actual injury must be “actual
prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim”).
Plaintiff presents only a general allegation that his ability to litigate has been affected; he
does not show that he has been unable to present a claim or that he actually missed a
deadline. As such, he fails to allege any actual injury.
IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to
Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction; Notice of Errata No. 1 (Doc. 54), and Plaintiff’s
Preliminary Injunction; Notice of Errata No. 1 is denied.
Dated this 10th day of August, 2015.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the merits of the underlying suit need not be considered. Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d
793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990).

-3-