Harris v. Rios et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING 80 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/17/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS,

CASE No. 1:09-cv-00781-MJS (PC)

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
(ECF No. 80)

15
16

H. A. RIOS, et al.,

17
Defendants.

18

/

19
20

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

21
22

Plaintiff Donte Rolando Harris, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

23

civil rights action on April 27, 2009 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

24

of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). (ECF No. 1.)

25
26

This action arose while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution - Atwater, California (“FCI Atwater”) and proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second

27
1

1

Amended Complaint against Defendants Gonzaga, Cobb, Zaragoza, and Valero for

2

interfering with incoming mail and against Defendant Cobb for interfering with outgoing

3

mail in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment; and against Defendants

4
5

Estrada, Cobb, Valero, and Zaragoza for violating Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment

6

due process rights in connection with his mail. Defendants filed their Answer on

7

October 25, 2012. (ECF No. 69.) This matter is in the discovery phase.

8
9
10

Plaintiff propounded requests for admissions and production of documents in
November 2012, and, receiving no responses, filed a Motion to Compel Discovery
Dispute Resolution in January 2013. (ECF No. 74.) Counsel for Defendants filed

11
12

opposition to the Motion stating the discovery responses had been served. (ECF No.

13

75.) Plaintiff then requested the Court dismiss his Motion. (ECF No. 76.) On February

14

22, 2013 the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

15

Dispute Resolution. (ECF No. 77.)

16
17

Plaintiff, now incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution - Terre Haute,
Indiana (“FCI Terre Haute”) contends non-party Bureau of Prisons staff members K.

18
Sierveld and T. Coleman, have not delivered the discovery responses and are
19
20
21
22
23
24

improperly in contact with defense counsel in this action regarding “unauthorized
content” in the discovery responses. (ECF No 81, at 1.)
Plaintiff filed Partial Objections (ECF No. 82) to the Court’s February 22, 2013
Order on grounds BOP staff at FCI Terre Haute had not delivered the subject discovery
responses to him. On March 18, 2013, the Court construed his Partial Objection as a

25
motion for reconsideration and denied it. (ECF No. 83.)
26
27

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
2

1

and Other Injunctive Relief filed on March 4, 2013. (ECF No. 80.) Therein Plaintiff seeks

2

an order enjoining defense counsel from any further contact with K. Sierveld and T.

3

Coleman and other BOP staff and requiring staff provide the discovery responses to

4
5

him. Defendants have not filed any opposition. The time for doing so has expired. Local

6

Rule 230(l).

7

II.

8
9
10

LEGAL STANDARDS
Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy,

never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22
(2008). To prevail, the party seeking injunctive relief must show either “(1) a likelihood

11
12

of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of

13

serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the

14

moving party's] favor.” Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc.,

15

762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula

16

International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,

17

461 U.S. 95, 101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury).

18
19

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of

20

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires that the court find the “relief

21

[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of

22

the federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

23

the federal right.”

24

Injunctive relief should be used “sparingly, and only . . . in clear and plain

25
case[s].” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976).
26
27
3

1
2

III.

ANALYSIS
A.

No Relief Against Non-Parties

3
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named defendants
4
5
6

in this action and over whom the Court has no personal jurisdiction.
“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the

7

parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine

8

the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration

9

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). The attorney of a party, and those acting in

10

concert with a party, may be bound by an injunction issued against the party pursuant

11
12

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Regal Knitwear Co., v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14,

13

(1945); Golden State Bottling Co., Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 414 U.S. 168, 178 (1973).

14

However, Rule 65 does not confer personal jurisdiction where it otherwise is lacking.

15

Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church and State v. City and County of Denver,

16

628 F.2d 1289, 1299 (10th Cir. 1980). “Having a relationship to an enjoined party of the

17

sort set forth in Rule 65(d) exposes a non-party to contempt for assisting the party to

18
19

violate the injunction, but does not justify granting injunctive relief against the non-party

20

in its separate capacity.” Federal Trade Com’n v. Productive Marketing, Inc., 136

21

F.Supp.2d 1096, 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2001), citing Additive Controls & Measurement

22

Systems, Inc., v. Flowdata, Inc., 96 F.3d 1390, 1395-96 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

23
24

The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the injunctive relief sought on this motion.
B.

No Basis for Injunctive Relief

25
26

1.

No Case or Controversy

27
4

1

Plaintiff’s concerns with the way BOP staff is processing the discovery responses

2

are unrelated to the case and controversy before the Court in this action. The Court has

3

no power to reach Plaintiff’s concerns because they are not part of any cognizable

4
5
6
7

claim before it. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and
State Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982).
2.

No Irreparable Harm

8

Even if Plaintiff’s concerns regarding BOP’s processing of discovery responses

9

mailed to him were properly before the Court, he fails to demonstrate irreparable harm

10

entitling him to injunctive relief. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–102

11
12

(1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury, and “past exposure to

13

illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive

14

relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present, adverse effects.”).

15
16
17

It is unclear why the discovery responses have not been delivered to him, or
whether he was given or has exercised any process to challenge the BOP’s processing
of the discovery responses (e.g., through the inmate appeal and staff complaint

18
process), and any results thereof. BOP staff may have a penologic purpose in their
19
20
21

processing the content of the discovery responses.
Plaintiff asserts that contact between BOP staff and defense counsel regarding

22

the discovery responses gives rise to a “conflict of interest” because “Defendants are

23

BOP employees”. However, Plaintiff provides no factual or legal basis for claiming a

24

conflict of interest which interferes with Plaintiff’s enforceable rights. Moreover, no facts

25
are presented to indicate that Plaintiff is in fact harmed by communications between the
26
27

BOP staff and defendants.
5

1
2
3

Plaintiff does not explain the nature and content of any discussion between BOP
staff and defense counsel. It is unclear why such speech would be unprotected by the
First Amendment, see Multimedia Holdings Corp., v. Circuit Court of Florida, St. Johns

4
5

County, 544 U.S. 1301, 1306 (2005) (procedures designed to chill expression can

6

constitute a prior restraint), and that such discussion is not reasonably related to

7

legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

8
9
10

Finally, Plaintiff does not show that delay in receiving the discovery responses
has harmed him. Action on this motion is without prejudice to his seeking available relief
if the delay does in fact adversely affect his pursuit of this litigation.

11
3.

12

Balance of Hardships Not in Plaintiff’s Favor

13

Given the foregoing findings, the balance of hardships can not favor Plaintiff.

14

The failure of BOP staff to deliver the discovery responses to Plaintiff may justify

15

other action by Plaintiff against that staff, but not against Defendants in this litigation

16

who reportedly have done what they were required to do with regard to this discovery.

17

Absent the existence of exceptional circumstances not present here, the Court

18
will not intervene in the day-to-day management of prisons. See e.g., Overton v.
19
20

Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison officials entitled to substantial deference);

21

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995) (disapproving the involvement of

22

federal courts in the day-to-day-management of prisons).

23

IV.

24

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
It appears Defendants have complied with their discovery responsibilities.

25
Plaintiff’s Motion seeks injunctive relief against only non-parties, without any
26
27

underlying case or controversy, irreparable harm, or balance of hardships favoring him.
6

1

Such injunctive relief is not available in this action.

2
3

Even if Plaintiff had sought to enjoin Defendants from communicating with BOP
staff, his request for injunctive relief would be denied, primarily because it is unclear

4
5
6

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and he has identified no harm accruing to him
that the Court can relieve.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

7
8

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Injunctive Relief filed on March 4, 2013 (ECF

9

No. 80) is DENIED.

10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated:
12eob4

April 17, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7