Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 53

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 49 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/3/13. Referred to Judge Ishii; 30-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
RODOLFO AGUIRRE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01343 AWI DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Document 49)

16

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17
18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed the action on August 16,

20
21
22

2012.
On May 8, 2013, the Court ordered that this action go forward on claims for retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment, inhumane conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth

23

Amendment, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth
24
25
26
27
28

Amendment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On June 17, 2013, the Defendants who were served in state court filed a Motion to
Dismiss certain claims. Plaintiff was instructed on service for the remaining Defendants and an
1

1

Order to Show Cause is currently pending based on Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service.

2

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is also pending.

3
4

On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed his third Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction. Defendants did not oppose the motion and it is deemed submitted

5

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
6

DISCUSSION

7
8
9

A.

LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that

10

would impair the courts ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On–Line, Inc.

11

v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871

12

F.2d 863 (9th Cir.1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching

13

power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter,

14

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir.1964).

15
16
17
18

In order to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate “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.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Winter v.

19
20
21
22

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). The Ninth
Circuit has also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to prelimina ry injunctions—that
is, balancing the elements of the preliminary injunction test, so that a stronger showing of one

23

element may offset a weaker showing of another—survives Winter and continues to be valid.

24

Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir.2010). “In other words,

25

‘serious questions going to the merits,’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the

26

plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter

27
28

2

1
2
3

test are also met.” Id. Under either test, Plaintiff must demonstrate a significant threat of
irreparable injury that is imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d
668, 674 (9th Cir.1988).

4
5

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary
injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the

6
7
8
9
10

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
B.

ANALYSIS
In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order to “ensure further adverse

11

actions are not taken against [him] for exercising [his] First Amendment right to ‘peacefully’

12

protest” against CDCR by way of a hunger strike. Mot. 1. Plaintiff alleges that on July 18,

13

2013, he was identified as a leader and/or participant in the hunger strike. Pursuant to Defendant

14

Kernan’s September 27, 2011, memorandum prohibiting hunger strikes as inmate disturbances

15

and permitting disciplinary action, Plaintiff was placed in Administrative Segregation and

16
17
18

received two Rule Violations Reports. Plaintiff requests that the Court stay the September 27,
2011, memorandum and ensure that further disciplinary action is not taken against him.
According to Plaintiff’s exhibits, the September 27, 2011, memorandum permits

19
20
21
22

disciplinary action against hunger strike participants, as well as segregation for hunger strike
leaders, based on CDCR’s determination that a hunger strike is an inmate disturbance that
impacts daily prison operations. On July 15, 2013, a Serious Rules Violation Report was issued

23

against Plaintiff based on his participation in the mass hunger strike. Plaintiff was also charged

24

with delaying a peace officer by participation in a mass hunger strike, as explained in a

25

supplement to the Rules Violation Report. The supplement explained that Plaintiff’s

26

participation significantly delayed the Facility C Meal program on a daily basis.

27
28

3

1
2
3
4

On July 18, 2013, Plaintiff was found to be a leader of the hunger strike, deemed a threat
to the safety and security of the institution and placed in Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff
was to remain in Administrative Segregation pending Administrative Review, adjudication of
disciplinary charges and/or appearance before the Institutional Classification Committee.

5

Plaintiff has not met his burden to support injunctive relief. First, Plaintiff contends that
6
7
8
9

he has shown a likelihood of success on the merits because this Court has already found that he
states a retaliation claim against Defendant Kernan based on the memorandum. The Court’s
finding in its screening order, however, is insufficient, by itself, to demonstrate a likelihood of

10

success on the merits. At this early stage of the proceeding and based solely on Plaintiff’s

11

complaint, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

12

An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

13

Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (emphasis added).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Second, although Plaintiff contends that the Rules Violation Reports subject him to
“severe” and/or “substantial” disciplinary actions, and that he is subject to the punitive mandates
of the September 27, 2011, his allegations do not demonstrate irreparable injury. Rather,
Plaintiff’s claims are vague and to some extent, speculative. Plaintiff wants the Court to ensure
that future adverse actions are not taken against him, a request that by its nature, involves
speculation as to what may occur. “Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury
sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction. A plaintiff must do more than merely
allege imminent harm sufficient to establish standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate

23

threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” Caribbean Marine Servs. Co.

24

v. Baldridge, 84 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir.1988).

25
26

Finally, Plaintiff’s statements are insufficient to demonstrate that the balance of equities
tips in his favor, or that the requested relief is in the public interest. Plaintiff’s requested relief

27
28

4

1
2

would require this Court to interfere with the prison’s internal policies and possibly compromise
the safety and security of the prison.

3

RECOMMENDATION

4

For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary

5

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction be DENIED.
6

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

7
8
9

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

10

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

11

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A party may file a reply to the objections within

12

fourteen (14) days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

13

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.

14

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

/s/ Dennis L. Beck

October 3, 2013

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
D C_Si gnat ue EN :
EA
r- D

19

3b142a

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5