Ransom v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations, et al.
Filing
85
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to: 1) Dney Plaintiff's Motion for PLU Status 70 ; and 2) Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 71 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/1/15: Fourteen (14) Day Objection Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
BRYAN E. RANSOM,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
Case No. 1: 11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO: 1) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PLU STATUS (ECF No. 70); AND 2)
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF
No. 71)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE
18
19
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
20 rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
The action proceeds against
21 Defendants Bondoc, Madina, Swingle, Neubarth, Corea and Dhah on Plaintiff’s Eighth
22 Amendment medical indifference claims.1 (ECF Nos. 21 & 26.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status (ECF No. 70.) and motion for
23
24 a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 71.). Defendants
25 Bondoc, Neubarth, and Swingle opposed the motions. (ECF Nos. 72 & 73.) No other
26 Defendants filed an opposition, and Plaintiff did not reply.
The time to do so has
27
1
Defendant Greaves was dismissed (ECF No. 67.), and Defendant Punt has defaulted (ECF
28 Nos. 53 & 54.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
passed. These matters are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
I.
MOTION FOR PLU STATUS
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Corcoran State Prison Law Library to provide
him with “Priority Library User” (“PLU”) status.
status he will not have sufficient access to the library to comply with the Court’s
discovery deadlines.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because: 1) the Court
lacks jurisdiction over Corcoran law library, 2) Plaintiff has adequate law library access
under the Code of Regulations and as demonstrated by his litigiousness to date, 3)
Plaintiff could request PLU status from the library based on his discovery deadlines, and
4) Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies on said request.
There is no indication that any of the named Defendants have any influence over
the policies and practices of Corcoran State Prison Law Library. The Court has no
power to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before
it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969);
Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). To date, it appears that Plaintiff has
been able to meet the Court’s deadlines, and when he has not been able to do so and
has shown good cause, the Court has granted him extensions of time. Should Plaintiff
need additional time in the future, he can file a motion seeking an extension at that time.
The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED.
II.
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff contends that without such
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring
Corcoran State Prison to provide him with a complete copy of his Central file (“C-File”)
and his medical records from 2003 to present addressing his chronic Hepatitis-C and
joint pain.
27
28
2
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
A.
Parties’ Arguments
Plaintiff contends that he needs a copy of his C-File and medical records in order
to litigate this case. He states that he requested his 2004 to 2010 medical records from
Defendant Bondoc, but Defendant objected that he lacked access to Plaintiff’s medical
records; he provided Plaintiff a release form to obtain his records. When Plaintiff
requested the records through the proper channels, he received only a small portion of
his relevant medical records. Plaintiff was informed that he would need to pay for
copies of his C-File or “go thru the courts in regards to discovery.” (ECF No. 71 at 16.)
Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Corcoran State Prison,
and Plaintiff’s motion is an improper request for discovery.
B.
Legal Standard
Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy,
never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on
the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).
C.
Analysis
Again, Plaintiff is seeking relief against a non-party. The Court does not have
jurisdiction over Corcoran State Prison, and thus cannot issue a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction against it. See Zenith, 395 U.S. at 112; Price v. City of
Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, Plaintiff fails to address
any of the above factors in his motion, and, in any event, it appears that Plaintiff has
access to the materials that he seeks.
26
27
28
3
1
III.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
2
3
4
5
The Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over Corcoran State Prison or its
Law Library, and Plaintiff has not established his entitlement to a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction.
RECOMMENDS that:
6
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status be DENIED; and
2.
7
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
8
injunction be DENIED.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Within
fourteen
(14)
days
after
being
served
with
these
Findings
and
Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a
copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served
and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
19
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated:
September 1, 2015
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?