Fuller v. Granville et al

Filing 114

ORDER, the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief in his "Renewed Request for Issuance of a Subpoena to Granville: Injunction" 87 ; Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/28/15.(REW)

Download PDF
1 2 MGD WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Samuel Louis Fuller, 10 11 12 No. CV 14-0020-PHX-DGC (JFM) Plaintiff, vs. ORDER Kari Jill Granville, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Samuel Louis Fuller brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 41.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Renewed Request for Issuance 18 of a Subpoena to Granville: Injunction” (“Motion”). (Doc. 87.) In a prior Order, the 19 Magistrate Judge addressed the portion of the Motion requesting a subpoena, and left the 20 request for injunctive relief pending. (Doc. 92.) The Court will deny the request for 21 injunctive relief. 22 I. 23 Background In the Court’s screening Orders, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim of 24 excessive force against Defendant Hadsall and dismissed the other claims and 25 Defendants. (Docs. 11, 40.) In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that he is being harassed by 26 MCSO “jailers.” (Doc. 87 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on July 4, 2015, he was using the 27 toilet in his cell and was behind a pink bed sheet which was hung to create a sense of 28 privacy. Officer B2430 was on a security walk, stopped at Plaintiff’s cell, and asked if 1 Plaintiff was alright or alive. Plaintiff advised the officer that he was well. Officer 2 B2430 responded that Plaintiff knew that he was “to show officer(s) his hands.” (Id.) 3 Plaintiff again said that he was well. The officer then entered Plaintiff’s cell and 4 removed the sheet, exposing Plaintiff. The officer said, “n[]ow you know when I tell you 5 to show me your hands, you raise them.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that Officer B2430 6 was aggressive toward him at all times. Plaintiff requests an injunction “because Officer 7 B2430 does not work or actually position as security in pod 2B1.35 instead is stationed in 8 medical MCCHS with anticipated defendant LPN Stephaine [sic] Soto . . . and this above 9 incident is suspect in the manner like unto Sergeant’s Hadsall action(s) with plaintiff.” 10 (Id. at 4.) 11 Plaintiff further alleges that “MCSO jailers” have barred him from the grievance 12 process and have failed to respond to his grievances since May 5, 2015. Plaintiff avers he 13 has “no other vehicle to address his issue as they seriously relate to his entire well being 14 in custody of person(s) acting in concert with the Defendant Hadsall[.]” (Doc. 87 at 4.) 15 Plaintiff states that he is “SMI” (seriously mentally ill) “and is easily threaten[ed] which 16 increases p[sy]chosis.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks an injunction “against MCSO jails custody at 17 all times Plaintiff’s criminal case . . . is pending and this instan[t] action is being 18 litigated.” (Id. at 5.) 19 II. 20 Discussion As a preliminary matter, it is not clear against whom Plaintiff seeks an injunction. 21 His Motion discusses Officer B2430, who is not a Defendant in this action, and he 22 requests an injunction against the “MCSO jails.” As to Officer B2430, a court may issue 23 an injunction against a non-party only where the non-party acts in active concert or 24 participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (a preliminary injunction 25 only binds those who receive actual notice of it by personal service or are parties, their 26 officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert); see 27 Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A federal court may issue an 28 injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction -2- 1 over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 2 court.”); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 3 (1969). While Plaintiff alleges that MCSO “jailers” and Officer B2430 are acting in 4 concert with Defendant Hadsall, he has presented no evidence of joint action between 5 Defendant Hadsall and Officer B2430, which precludes issuance of an injunction against 6 Officer B2430. 7 As to the “MCSO jails,” claims under § 1983 are directed at “bodies politic and 8 corporate.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Svcs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 688-89 (1978). 9 Under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress intended municipalities and other local 10 government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Id. at 11 689-690. Because a jail is neither a corporation nor a body politic, it is not a “person” for 12 purposes of § 1983. See, e.g., Petaway v. City of New Haven Police Dep’t, 541 F. 13 Supp.2d 504 (D. Conn. 2008); Pahle v. Colebrookdale Tp., 227 F. Supp.2d 361 (E.D. Pa. 14 2002). Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the 15 “MCSO jails.” 16 Alternatively, even if the Court could address Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 17 relief, he fails to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. 18 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). First, it is not clear what relief 19 Plaintiff seeks when he merely requests an injunction against the “MCSO jails” while his 20 criminal case and this case are pending. As Defendant notes, Plaintiff does not say “what 21 exactly is requested, i.e., don’t yell, don’t tear down privacy sheets, don’t ask for hands to 22 be displayed, etc.?” (Doc. 95 at 4.) Nor has Plaintiff presented any evidence addressing 23 the Winter factors. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief will be denied. 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 1 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to 2 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief in his “Renewed Request for Issuance of a 3 Subpoena to Granville: Injunction” (Doc. 87), and Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief 4 is denied. 5 Dated this 28th day of August, 2015. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?