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ORDER, the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief in his "Renewed Request for Issuance of a Subpoena to Granville: Injunction" 87 ; Plaintiff's request for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)

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-