Swearington v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 13 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/31/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DWAYNE SWEARINGTON,

CASE No. 1:12-cv-00958-MJS (PC)

10
11

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff,

12

v.
(ECF Nos. 13)

13
14
15

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

16

Defendant.

17
/

18
19
20

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21
22

Plaintiff Dwayne Swearington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

23

pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action originally filed on April 23, 2012 in

24

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Letter Compl.,

25

ECF No. 1) and transferred to this Court. (Order Transfer, ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has

26

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Consent Jurisdiction, ECF No. 8.)

27
-1-

1

The Court screened the Complaint on July 27, 2012 and dismissed it for failure

2

to state a claim but gave leave to file an amended complaint. (Order Dismiss. Compl.,

3

ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on September 27, 2012. (First

4
5

Am. Compl., ECF No. 14.) The Court also screened and dismissed the First Amended

6

Complaint for failure to state a claim and again gave leave to amend. (Order Dismiss.

7

First Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff has not yet filed a second amended complaint.

8
9
10

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Emergency Injunctive Motion For Relief,
For and Against Continuous Obstruction By CMC, and NKSP Appeal’s Offices
Conspiring to Deny Access To The Court.” (Motion for Emergency Injunction, ECF No.

11
12

13.)

13

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against the appeals coordinator offices at

14

California Men’s Colony-East (“CMC”) and North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”) and asks

15

that the Court “allow [the prison appeal documents included as exhibits to the Motion] to

16

be submitted so that the court can take action on the injunctive relief and stop the acts

17

and actions of CMC, and NKSP State Prison’s obstruction” (Mot. Emerg. Inj. at 3:16-

18
18.) He also asks for an order that he be moved to a medical prison so he can receive
19
20

appropriate medical attention. Id. at 3:19-21.

21

Defendants have not filed any opposition. The time for doing so has passed.

22

Local Rule 230. Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction is now before the Court.

23

II.

24

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

25
never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22
26
27

(2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
-2-

1

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

2

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

3

in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,

4

1052 (9th Cir. 2009), (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.) An injunction may only be

5
6
7

awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at
22.
Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of

8
9

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

10

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

11

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

12
the federal right.”
13
Injunctive relief should be used “sparingly, and only . . . in clear and plain

14
15

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

16

III.

17
18
19

ARGUMENT
Plaintiff contends unidentified staff in the appeals coordinator offices and

mailrooms at CMC and NKSP interact and conspire to improperly handle and remove
legal documents from his unspecified CDC Forms 22 and 602,1 staff complaints,2 and

20
21
22

from his cell, preventing Plaintiff from appropriately and timely exhausting his
administrative remedies, (Motion for Emergency Injunction at 1:25-2:4), preventing his

23
24
25
26
27

1

CDC Form 22 is an Inm ate Request for Interview, Item or Service. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 §
3086; CDC Departm ental Operations Manual § 54090.4. CDC Form 602 is the Inm ate Appeal. Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.2; CDC Departm ent Operations Manual § 54100.6.
2

The Court takes notice that a staff com plaint filed by an inm ate is processed as an appeal. Cal.
Code Regs. tit 15 § 3084.9(I).

-3-

1

access to the court in unspecified proceedings (Id. at 2:8), and placing him in fear of

2

physical confrontation in the near future. (Id. at 2:20-22.)

3
4

Plaintiff also contends the NKSP law library does not have a law librarian for AQuad and is shut down, and that Plaintiff will have to move because it will be difficult to

5
6

submit unspecified legal documents to the court. (Id. at 2:24-27.)

7

Plaintiff includes with his Motion various prison appeal documents he asks the

8

Court to accept so Defendants do not destroy or misplace them. (Id. at 3:1-8, 15-18.)

9

IV.

10
11

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief.
A.

No Likelihood of Success on the Merits

12
13

Plaintiff has failed at this early stage of the litigation to allege facts demonstrating

14

a likelihood of success on the merits. His underlying pleadings have been dismissed for

15

failure to state a claim. (Orders Dismiss. Compl. and First Am. Compl., ECF Nos. 9, 15.)

16

He has yet to plead a cognizable federal claim.

17
18

He similarly fails to demonstrate any likelihood of success on allegations lodged
in the instant Motion claiming conspiracy among unidentified CMC and NKSP appeals

19
20
21
22

coordinator offices and mailroom staff to improperly handle his prison appeal
documents.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requirement of exhaustion through the

23 prison appeal process3 does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather is an
24 affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315
25
26
3

27

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

-4-

1

F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Exhaustion is not a jurisdictional requirement for

2 bringing an action. See Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 1999)
3 (overruled on other grounds by Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001).) Plaintiff has no
4 independently enforceable federal right to the grievance process.
5

Prison staff actions in responding to Plaintiff's prison appeals and staff complaints

6
alone can not give rise to any claim for relief under § 1983 for violation of due process.
7
8

“[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any

9 substantive right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.
10 1993) (citing Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 10 (D.C. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez
11 v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in processing of appeals
12

because no entitlement to a specific grievance procedure). Actions in reviewing a

13
prisoner's administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for liability under a § 1983
14
15

action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Plaintiff has neither a liberty interest nor a substantive

16 right to the procedures involved in inmate appeals. In Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639 (9th
17 Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit held that a prisoner does not have a claim of entitlement to a
18 grievance procedure. 855 F.2d at 640. This was reiterated in Ramirez , 334 F.3d at 860,
19
20

when the Ninth Circuit observed that inmates do not have a separate constitutional
entitlement to a grievance procedure.

21
22

Plaintiff fails to specify the individuals against whom he seeks injunctive relief

23 and the specific relief desired. Generalized injunctive relief against unidentified CDC
24 staff is not permissible. The PLRA states that:
25

[T]he court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds

26

that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct

27
-5-

1

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

2

correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to

3

any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system

4

caused by the relief.

5
6
7
8

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Similar requirements apply with respect to temporary
restraining orders and preliminary injunctive relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against staff at CMC is moot. Plaintiff is no

9 longer incarcerated at CMC, and there appears no expectation that Plaintiff will be
10 returned to their custody.4 Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402–03 (1975); Johnson v.
11

Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d

12
1047, 1053, n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). The harm alleged here does not “fall within that category
13
14

of harm ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’”. Preiser, 422 U.S. 395 at 403

15 (quoting Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911).)
16

Plaintiff’s request for a transfer to a medical facility is unsupported by facts or

17 allegations. Moreover, inmates do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a
18

particular correctional facility. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976).

19
Plaintiff’s allegation that he has been denied access to courts, both as it relates to
20
21

legal mail and to unavailability of the prison law library is conclusory, speculative, and

22 unsupported by any fact. Plaintiff’s Motion fails to allege any “nonfrivolous or arguable”
23 underlying claim(s), official acts frustrating the claim(s), and a remedy that may be
24 awarded as recompense but that is not otherwise available in a future suit. Christopher
25
26
4

27

It does not appear Plaintiff seeks relief as to any prison grievance pending with CMC.

-6-

1 v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413–414 (2002). Additionally, he fails to establish that he has
2 suffered “actual prejudice with respect to any contemplated or existing litigation. Lewis v.
3 Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (9th Cir. 1996). Likewise Plaintiff underlying pleadings fail to
4

state any cognizable access to courts claim.

5
6
7

Plaintiff’s request for relief for potential future physical confrontation is conclusory
and speculative, unsupported by any fact or cognizable claim in this matter. Nothing in

8 the instant Motion or underlying pleadings suggests the risk of violence.
9

Plaintiff’s allegation of conspiracy is similarly based solely upon speculation and

10 surmise. To state a claim for conspiracy under § 1983, Plaintiff must show the existence
11

of an agreement or a meeting of the minds to violate his constitutional rights, and an

12
actual deprivation of those constitutional rights. Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th
13
14

Cir. 2010); Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2001). Nothing contained in

15 Plaintiff’s Motion suggests such an agreement. Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated any
16 likelihood of a predicate federal rights violation.
17
18

B.

No Irreparable Harm

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. See City of Los Angeles v.

19
Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of
20
21

injury, and “past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or

22 controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present,
23 adverse effects.”) He alleges no facts suggesting harm arising from CMC and NKSP
24 appeals coordinator office and mailroom staff improperly handling his prison appeal
25

documentation. The instant Motion does not cite to any claim or litigation that is

26
imperiled and suggest a risk arising therefrom. His underlying pleadings likewise have
27
-7-

1 failed to allege any such risk of harm. He does not suggest any form of relief that has
2 been requested and denied, or is otherwise unavailable due to conduct of prison staff.
3
4

The responses by prison staff to certain of Plaintiff’s appeals suggest Plaintiff
may have abused the prison appeal process (Compl. at 20-21, 29-30) including serial

5
6

filing of previously rejected appeals. (Id. at 64-65.)

7

C.

Balance of Equities and Public Interest Not in Plaintiff’s Favor

8

The absence of a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, and of

9 irreparable harm leaves nothing to tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff's favor, or
10 suggest that an injunction would be in the public interest.
11

In any event, absent the existence of exceptional circumstances not present here,

12
13
14

the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day management of prisons. See e.g., Overton
v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison officials entitled to substantial deference);

15 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995) (disapproving the involvement of federal
16 courts in the day-to-day-management of prisons.)
17
18

Plaintiff's allegations do not support an entitlement to injunctive relief.
D.

Court is not a Repository for Evidence

19
20
21

Plaintiff may not presently deposit evidence into Court. “The court cannot serve
as a repository for the parties' evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, witness

22 affidavits, etc.) The parties may not file evidence with the court until the course of
23 litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a motion for summary
24 judgment, at trial, or when requested by the court).” First Informational Order, ECF No.
25

6, 4 at ¶ 6.

26
27
-8-

The Court notes that Plaintiff has been granted leave to file a second amended

1

2 complaint. (Order Dismiss. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) He may include therein all
3 claims and relief sought against named Defendants along with desired exhibits,
4

consistent with October 23, 2012 screening order.

5
6

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff fails to provide facts which would enable the Court to find that he is in

7

8 need of and entitled to injunctive relief.
9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Emergency

10 Injunction, (ECF No. 13), is DENIED without prejudice.
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

16 12eob4

October 31, 2012

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-9-