Washington v. Andrews et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING 50 Ex Parte Notice and Motion for Protective Order signed by District Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson on 8/11/2010. (Bradley, A)

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 26 27 28 JESSE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, vs. J. W. ANDREWS, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 1:07-CV-886-CKJ ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Ex Parte Notice and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 50). Defendants have not filed a response. Plaintiff Jesse Washington ("Washington") requests this Court to order the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Kern Valley State Prison, Warden Kelly Harrington and representatives to immediately transport him to an off-site medical specialist to examine and resolve medical issues regarding his right hand (calcium build-up in fingers and knuckles). Washington is requesting injunctive relief by requesting this Court to order persons to perform some act. Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy. "The basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies." Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 1803, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). Injunctive relief is not automatic: "In each case, a court must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or

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 26 27 28

withholding of the requested relief. Although particular regard should be given to the public interest . . . a federal judge sitting as chancellor is not mechanically obligated to grant an injunction for every violation of law." Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 1402, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987). However, Washington's request does not seek to accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by the complaint. Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 F.2d 863, 865 (9th Cir. 1989). Indeed, Washington has not only requested relief not sought in the complaint, but is requesting this relief against non-parties. See id., citation and footnote omitted ("An injunction may be defined as an order that is directed to a party, enforceable by contempt, and designed to accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint in more than temporary fashion."). The Court finds Washington has not clearly shown injunctive relief is appropriate. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) ( Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the moving party must carry its burden of persuasion by a "clear showing."); City of Angoon v. Marsh, 749 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1984). Washington has asserted that his medical condition affects his ability to adequately prosecute this case. While this does not justify the issuance of an injunction towards the conduct of non-parties in this case, the Court does advise Washington that, if needed, he may seek to extend any deadlines that may be impacted by the limitation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Ex Parte Notice and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 50) is DENIED. DATED this 11th day of August, 2010.

-2-