Hamilton v. Unknown

Filing 27

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 11 ), Fourteen Day Objection Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/11/2013. Objections to F&R due by 12/2/2013.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE HAMILTON,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

14

UNKNOWN,

(ECF No. 11)

12

Defendant.

15

FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

16
17
18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action was opened in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

20

California on July 18, 2013 based upon Plaintiff’s letter to the Honorable Thelton E.

21

Henderson. That letter alleged that prison staff at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”)

22

participated in a "pattern of racketeering activity," which led to an "extremely dangerous

23

and stressful prison environment." On September 10, 2013, the case was ordered

24

transferred to this Court.

25

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff

26

requests the Court order that (1) the “CDCR-Enterprise” be permanently enjoined from

27

enforcing at all its institutions an “intra-racial segregation scheme” designed to strengthen

28

the position of certain selected Hispanic inmate group(s) which engage in racketeering,
1

1

cause race riots, and target African American inmates, (2) the class of African American

2

Level III, IV inmates, past, present and future, be certified in this action, (3) a declaratory

3

judgment issue that the intra-racial segregation scheme is unconstitutional and a state

4

created danger, and (4) counsel be appointed.1

5

II.

ARGUMENT

6

Plaintiff is currently confined at KVSP. He claims the California Department of

7

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is purposely strengthening certain Hispanic

8

inmate groups or gangs at its institutions and conspiring with these groups or gangs in

9

racketeering activities. This has and will result in race riots targeting African American

10

inmates. He desires to bring this suit on behalf of a class of African American inmates.
Plaintiff argues appointment of counsel is necessary because the issues are many

11
12

and complex, discovery will be extensive, and the CDCR Enterprise may engage in

13

deceptive conduct.

14

III.

ANALYSIS

15

A.

Legal Standard

16

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

17

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

18

(2008).
To prevail, the party seeking injunctive relief must show either “(1) a likelihood

19
20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury).
Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of

26
27

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

28
1

Plaintiff’s separate motion for the appointment of counsel was denied on October 4, 2013. (ECF No. 20.)

2

1

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

2

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

3

the federal right.”

4

B.

1.

5

No Federal Claim Stated2
a.

6

No Named Defendants

Plaintiff does not in his letter identify any defendant(s). Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). He may

7
8

No Basis for Injunctive Relief

not proceed against unidentified defendants.
Plaintiff must also link each named defendant to the alleged violation of his rights.

9
10

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named Defendant

11

personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934

12

(9th Cir. 2002). “Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional

13

conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

14

U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Rather, each government official, regardless of his or her title, is only

15

liable for his or her own misconduct, and therefore, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each

16

defendant, through his or her own individual actions, violated Plaintiff's constitutional

17

rights. Id. at 676–77.
Plaintiff may not attribute liability to groups generally. See Chuman v. Wright, 76

18
19

F.3d 292, 294–95 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding instruction permitting jury to find individual

20

liable as member of team, without any showing of individual wrongdoing, is improper).
b.

21

CDCR Immune from Suit

22

Plaintiff alleges the CDCR is engaged in racketeering. However, the CDCR is a state

23

agency and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety,

24

488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007).
c.

25

Plaintiff May not Bring Class Action

Plaintiff seeks to bring a class action. However, Plaintiff is not an attorney and is

26
27

proceeding without counsel. A non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims

28

2

Plaintiff has not complied with Court orders that he submit a complaint on the proper form. (ECF Nos. 2, 3,
12.)

3

1

to court, but may not represent others. Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 213 F.3d

2

1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th

3

Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

A pro se litigant simply cannot “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Fymbo, 213 F.3d at 1321. Therefore, this action will be

6

construed as an individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff rather than as a class action.
d.

7

Plaintiff does not have an individual right of action to enforce the criminal statutes

8
9

Plaintiff May not Bring Criminal Action

cited in his letter to Judge Henderson.3 Plaintiff may not file a criminal complaint. 28

10

U.S.C. § 547; Ivey v. National Treasury Employees Union, No. 05-1147 (EGS), 2007 WL

11

915229, *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2007); see also Figueroa v. Clark, 810 F.Supp. 613,

12

615 (E.D.Pa. 1992) (plaintiff “cannot bring criminal charges against defendants through

13

a private lawsuit,”). Moreover, where federal statutes contain provisions for criminal

14

penalties, citizen suits, judicial review, or even administrative proceedings alone, the

15

Supreme Court has found the remedial scheme sufficiently comprehensive to foreclose

16

an independent § 1983 cause of action. See City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams,

17

544 U.S. 113, 121-22 (2005); see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 191-92

18

(9th Cir. 1995).

19

2.

No imminent Harm

Plaintiff complains unnamed staff at KVSP have engaged in racketeering activity

20
21

which has created a dangerous and stressful environment. However, the danger alleged is

22

unspecified and unsupported by any factual basis. See City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. at

23

101–102 (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury, and “past exposure to

24

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

25

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

26

conclusory allegations against unnamed individuals are not sufficient for the Court to

27

consider injunctive relief. Plaintiff fails to allege how he individually has been threatened

28

3

Plaintiff cites to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242, 1512-1513, 1693, 1701-1703, 1951, 1959, 1961-1968.

4

1

with irreparable injury.
Plaintiff does not address the balance of hardships issue. Absent the existence of

2
3

exceptional circumstances not present here, the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day

4

management of prisons. See e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison

5

officials entitled to substantial deference); Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 482–83 (1995)

6

(disapproving the involvement of federal courts in the day-today management of prisons).
3.

7

No Case or Controversy

8

Plaintiff has no cognizable claim pending in this action for the reasons stated above.

9

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and in considering a request for preliminary

10

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have

11

before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge

12

Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471

13

(1982).
Further, Plaintiff may not enjoin unnamed individuals not before the Court. “A federal

14
15

court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

16

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

17

before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

18

1985).

19

IV.

20

LEGAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff fails to allege facts suggesting the need for and entitlement to injunctive

21

relief. The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for injunction (ECF No. 11) be

22

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

23

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

24

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

25

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties

26

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections

27

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A party may respond to another

28

party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being served with a
5

1

copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

2

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

3

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

12

November 11, 2013

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

13

Michael J. Seng

12eob4

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6