Torres v. Diaz et al
Filing
39
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's 38 Request for Court Order to Obtain Confidential Calls During Discovery Phase of Litigation signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/19/2015. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 4/23/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JUAN MATIAS TORRES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00492-AWI-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
COURT ORDER TO OBTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
CALLS DURING DISCOVERY PHASE OF
LITIGATION
[ECF No. 38]
Plaintiff Juan Matias Torres is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a court order to obtain confidential calls
19
20
during the discovery phase of this litigation, filed March 18, 2015. (ECF No. 38.) The Court
21
construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction.
22
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Michael
23
Harris, Rumulo Garza, and Y. Arnold for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
24
against Defendant John Doe for unreasonable search, against Defendant D. Fernandez for retaliation,
25
and against Defendants B. Garza and M. Pallares for a due process violation.
Defendants R. Garza, Pallares, Arnold, Fernandez, Harris, and B. Garza filed an answer to the
26
27
second amended complaint, and on February 5, 2015, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling
28
///
1
1
order. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.) The deadline for completion of all discovery is October 5, 2015. (ECF No.
2
32.)
3
I.
4
DISCUSSION
5
The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the
6
status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to
7
intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of
8
Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or
9
temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely
10
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
11
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
12
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
13
“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
14
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”
15
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A
16
party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that
17
motion is unsupported by evidence.
Mazurek v.
18
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary
19
injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it
20
an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 102 (1983); Valley Forge
21
Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If
22
the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in
23
question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the
24
Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly
25
drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least
26
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”
27
Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly drawn to correct the violation of his
28
rights at issue in this action. The constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to equitable
2
1
relief preclude Plaintiff from entitlement to generalized relief such an order directing that prison
2
officials allow Plaintiff to have confidential telephone calls for one hour per day from today’s day
3
until the end of the discovery phase. The equitable relief requested herein is not sufficiently related to
4
Plaintiff’s underlying legal claims to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements that apply to federal courts.
5
This is for the simple reason that the merits of the underlying action do not relate to the conduct
6
alleged in his motion for a preliminary injunction.
7
discovery is not the type of injury that a preliminary injunction is meant to address. Rather, a plaintiff
8
seeking a preliminary injunction order directing or preventing prison officials from doing some action
9
must show, among other things, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a
10
Furthermore, difficulty or inconvenience in
preliminary injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied.
11
II.
12
RECOMMENDATION
13
Based on the foregoing,
14
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be
15
DENIED.
16
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
17
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days
18
after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections
19
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
20
Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
21
result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
22
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated:
26
March 19, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?