Montanez v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 9 Motion Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 08/15/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PAUL MONTANEZ, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01931-SMS PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. (ECF No. 4, 9) 12 13 F. GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Paul Montanez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint and 17 motion for a preliminary injunction on October 15, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) On November 8, 2010, 18 Plaintiff filed a motion for a injunctive relief ordering the prison library to duplicate all legal 19 documents. (ECF No. 9.) On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to return his 20 original exhibits. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a motion for a memorandum of law in support of his 21 complaint on November 22, 2011. (ECF No. 12.) 22 Plaintiff has filed motions seeking injunctive relief requiring the warden and chief medical 23 officer to provide the pain medication prescribed by and post surgical care and treatment 24 recommended by the orthopedic specialist, and an order directing the law library to duplicate all legal 25 documents exceeding 100 pages or more. (Motion for Preliminary Injunction 9:18-23, ECF No. 4; 26 Motion for Order 3:8-12, ECF No. 9.) 27 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 28 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 1 1 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 2 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips 3 in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 4 Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009) quoting Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374. An 5 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 6 129 S. Ct. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 7 For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield 8 v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires 9 Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and 10 particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be 11 fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial 12 decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 13 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted). 14 In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 15 which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison 16 conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a 17 particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless 18 the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 19 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 20 the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 21 In a separate order issued concurrently with this order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 22 complaint, with leave to amend. Until Plaintiff files an amended complaint and the Court is able to 23 determine which claims are cognizable and appropriately raised in this action, the Court lacks 24 jurisdiction to issue any preliminary injunctions. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 129 S.Ct. 25 at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Further, some of the orders sought by Plaintiff cannot be issued 26 even assuming Plaintiff is able to amend to state one or more cognizable claims. For example, past 27 misconduct usually does not confer standing to seek an order aimed at preventing future harm. City 28 of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983); Mayfield, 599 F.3d 970. In 2 1 addition, the pendency of this action does not entitle Plaintiff to the issuance of orders that, for 2 example, relate to law library access to litigate this action. 3 4 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, filed October 15, 2010, and November 8, 2010, are HEREBY DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: icido3 August 15, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?