Freeman v. Martin et al
Filing
6
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request For Court Orders (Doc. 5 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/23/2014. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEMETRIUS TERRELL FREEMAN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
A. MARTIN, et al.,
15
1:14-cv-00575-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR COURT ORDERS
(Doc. 5.)
Defendants.
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Demetrius Terrell Freeman ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403
20
U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on April 21, 2014.
21
(Doc. 1.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he requests court orders as follows:
(1) prohibiting prison officials from retaliating against him and requiring prison officials to
return his personal property, (2) requiring the preservation of evidence, (3) combining this case
with another case filed by Plaintiff, and (4) ruling on the exhaustion issue in this case. (Doc.
5.)
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
28
1
O
1
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of
2
equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure
3
the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.
4
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who
5
Ademonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable
6
harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.@
7
Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either
8
approach the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an
9
injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a
10
bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or
11
questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id.
12
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court
13
must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
14
102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation
15
of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of
16
Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or
17
controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal
18
court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject
19
matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not
20
before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.
21
1985).
22
Discussion
23
Plaintiff seeks court orders prohibiting prison officials from retaliating against him, and
24
requiring prison officials to return his personal property. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at
25
the United States Penitentiary (USP)-Beaumont in Beaumont, Texas. Plaintiff alleges that he is
26
being retaliated against by prison officials there for using the administrative remedy process.
27
Plaintiff also alleges that a prison counselor at USP-Beaumont vandalized his cell and
28
confiscated some of his personal property.
2
1
The events at issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint allegedly occurred at USP-Atwater in
2
Atwater, California when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Therefore, the court orders Plaintiff
3
requests, directed at prison officials at USP-Beaumont, would not remedy any of the claims
4
arising at USP-Atwater upon which this action proceeds.
5
protecting him from present and future actions by prison officials. Because such orders would
6
not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to
7
issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion for preliminary injunctive relief must
8
be denied.
Plaintiff requests court orders
9
Moreover, Plaintiff is advised that Aa federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it
10
has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may
11
not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States
12
Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because none of the
13
defendants have appeared in this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order
14
prohibiting any of them from acting against Plaintiff.
15
III.
PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
16
ASpoliation of evidence is the >destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the
17
failure to preserve property for another=s use as evidence, in pending or future litigation.=@
18
Kearney v. Foldy & Lardner, LLP, 590 F.3d 638, 649 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hernandez v.
19
Garcetti, 68 Cal.App.4th 675, 680, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 443 (1998)).
20
uncompromising duty to preserve what they know or reasonably should know will be relevant
21
evidence in a pending lawsuit, or one in the offing . . . .@ JUDGE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER
22
AL.,
23
citations omitted). Further, the destruction of evidence is sanctionable conduct.
ALitigants owe an
ET
FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ' 11:125 (2004) (internal quotations and
24
Discussion
25
Plaintiff requests a court order requiring the preservation of certain evidence. Plaintiff
26
asserts that a video tape exists of the assault which serves as the basis of this action. Plaintiff
27
also asserts that BOP (Bureau of Prisons) policy stipulates that all use-of-force videos must be
28
held for two years. Plaintiff asserts that he notified the institution about this civil case in 2012
3
1
and also notified the DHO (Discipline Hearing Officer) when he submitted a request to hold the
2
video as evidence, but the DHO has refused to issue a DHO report. Plaintiff requests the court
3
to issue an order requiring personnel at USP-Atwater to send the video to the court or retain it
4
as evidence in this action.
5
Given that the litigants already have a duty to preserve evidence, Plaintiff=s request for a
6
court order shall be denied. The Court declines to presume that Defendants will destroy
7
evidence, and Plaintiff has not explained the significance of the DHO’s refusal to issue a DHO
8
report or otherwise provided evidence that the video is in danger of being destroyed.
9
IV.
CONSOLIDATION OF CASES
10
Consolidation is governed by Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
11
provides, AIf actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may
12
(1) join for hearing or trial any or all of the matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the
13
actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
14
Consolidation may be ordered on the motion of any party or on the court=s own motion
15
whenever it reasonably appears that consolidation would aid in the efficient and economic
16
disposition of a case. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29,
17
1972, 549 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1977). The decision whether to consolidate cases rests in the
18
trial court=s sound discretion, and is not dependent on party approval. Investors Research Co.
19
v. United States Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989); Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007,
20
1007, 1001 (6th Cir. 1993). In determining whether to consolidate actions, the court weighs the
21
interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused
22
by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807
23
(N.D. Cal. 1989).
24
Discussion
25
Plaintiff requests the court to consolidate this case with Plaintiff’s case 13-cv-03397-
26
MSK-CBS, “to simplify matters.” (Motion at 2.) Plaintiff has not indicated when or where
27
28
case 13-cv-03397-MSK-CBS was filed or provided any information about the parties,
allegations, or claims in the case. The case number given by Plaintiff does not match with any
4
1
cases in this court. Without more information, the court cannot determine whether these two
2
cases involve a common question of law or fact or whether consolidation would aid in the
3
efficient and economic disposition of the cases. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for consolidation
4
shall be denied.
5
V.
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
6
Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (APLRA@) provides that
7
A[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. ' 1983], or any
8
other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until
9
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a). Prisoners
10
are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock,
11
549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-
12
1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and
13
regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct.
14
1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life,
15
Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002).
16
Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative
17
defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of
18
exhaustion. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).
19
The failure to exhaust nonjudicial administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject
20
to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt at
21
1119 (citing Ritza v. Int=l Longshoremen=s & Warehousemen=s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th
22
Cir. 1998) (per curium)). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative
23
remedies, the Court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt
24
at 1119-20. If the Court concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative
25
remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id.
26
27
28
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has
an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. 28 C.F.R. §542.10, et seq. The
process is initiated by submitting a formal written Administrative Remedy Request on form
5
1
BP-9. Id. ' 542.14. In most cases, inmates are required to complete informal resolution and
2
submit a Request form to the Warden within twenty calendar days of the date on which the
3
basis for the Request occurred. Id.
4
he or she may submit an Appeal on form BP-10 to the Regional Director within twenty
5
calendar days of the date the Warden signed the response. Id. § 542.15(a). An inmate who is
6
not satisfied with the Regional Director’s response may submit an Appeal on form BP-11 to the
7
8
9
10
If an inmate is not satisfied with the Warden’s response,
General Counsel within thirty days of the date the Regional Director signed the response. Id.
Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal. Id. In order to satisfy '
1997e(a), federal prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing
suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d. at 1199-1201.
11
Discussion
12
Plaintiff requests the court to make a ruling on the exhaustion-of-remedies issue in this
13
14
15
16
case. Plaintiff requests the court to review “the sensitive BP-9 and BP-11 forms . . . [which he]
no longer possess[es],” to determine whether he has met the requirements for exhaustion of
remedies for this case.
Because exhaustion is an affirmative defense, sua sponte dismissal for failure to exhaust
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
administrative remedies under the PLRA is only appropriate if, taking the prisoner's factual
allegations as true, the complaint establishes the prisoner’s failure to exhaust. See Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). The court has reviewed
Plaintiff’s Complaint and does not find that the Complaint, on its face, establishes Plaintiff’s
failure to exhaust.1 Therefore, at this juncture the court shall not decide the issue of exhaustion
in this case, and Plaintiff’s request for a ruling at this stage of the proceedings shall be denied.
VI.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
27
28
1
Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided the court with copies of the BP forms he seeks to have reviewed.
Plaintiff states in the Complaint that he “enclosed proof of exhaustion.” (Compl at 2 ¶II.B.) However, there is no
record that Plaintiff submitted any documents with the Complaint.
6
1
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for a court order prohibiting prison officials from retaliating
2
against him and requiring prison officials to return his personal property is
3
DENIED;
4
2.
5
Plaintiff’s request for a court order requiring the preservation of evidence is
DENIED;
6
3.
Plaintiff’s request for consolidation of cases is DENIED; and
7
4.
Plaintiff’s request for a ruling on the exhaustion-of-remedies issue in this case is
8
DENIED.
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 23, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?