Gregory E. Shehee (Civil Detainee) v. Trumbly et al

Filing 105

ORDER ADOPTING 95 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 92 , 93 , 94 Plaintiff's Motions for Copies signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/16/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

REDDING, et al.,

15

No. 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COPIES
Defendants.

(Doc. Nos. 92, 93, 94, 95)

16
17

At the time this action was filed, Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee was a civil detainee

18

proceeding pro se in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was

19

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

20

302.
On June 2, 2017, and again on June 5, 2017, plaintiff filed motions seeking to obtain

21
22

copies of case files. (Doc. Nos. 92–94.) On June 8, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued

23

findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motions for copies be denied.

24

(Doc. No. 95.) The parties were provided twenty-one days during which to file objections to

25

those findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff did so on June 22, 2017. (Doc. No. 99.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the

26
27

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

28

/////
1

1

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

2

by the record and proper analysis.

3

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections, which are somewhat difficult to decipher,

4

and finds them to lack merit. Plaintiff alleges in his objections that the government has “stolen

5

397,000 relevant material evidence” to be used at trial in this case. (Doc. No. 99 at 8.) The court

6

interprets this statement as seeking a preliminary injunction on the basis that plaintiff has been

7

denied access to courts, or else has been retaliated against for filing the present action. Plaintiff’s

8

allegations in this regard, however, are directed at individuals who are not parties to this present.

9

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint filed in this case lists the following individuals as defendants:

10

(1) J. Redding; (2) J. Blanco; (3) J. Gonzalez; (4) K. Peugh; (5) M. Clark; (6) R. David; (7) B.T.

11

Bales; (8) Pamela Ahlin; (9) Audrey King; and (10) Jack Carter. (Doc. No. 88 at 2–3.) By

12

contrast, the individuals who allegedly deprived plaintiff of his documents are, as best as the court

13

can ascertain: (1) Margaret Mims; (2) J. Horton; (3) Lt. Mayor; (4) Lt. McCoy; (5) Sgt. Lacy; (6)

14

Sgt. Betty Moreno; (7) Sgt. Eguiemi; (8) Corp. Casio; (9) Officer Rodriguez; (10) Officer Lecom;

15

and (11) Officer Rams. (See Doc. No. 99 at 8–9.) It therefore does not appear as though any of

16

the individuals plaintiff seeks to enjoin are parties to the present case.

17

“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and

18

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

19

not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). Under Federal

20

Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction may only bind “the parties to the action, their

21

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and . . . those persons in active concert or

22

participation with them who receive actual notice of the order.” Id. (quoting the rule) (citing

23

Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478, 481 (1978)). Moreover, those

24

nonparties to the action must receive “actual notice” of the injunction in order to be bound by it.

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the individuals against whom the

26

injunction is sought are officers, agents, servants, employees, or attorneys of any of the named

27

defendants. Nor does plaintiff make any showing that they are in “active concert or participation”

28

with the named defendants. Finally, it is not apparent to the court that any of the individuals
2

1

plaintiff seeks to enjoin have actual notice of this action. The court therefore finds that it has no

2

power to bind the individuals named in plaintiff’s findings and recommendations by way of a

3

preliminary injunction.

4

In any event, nothing in plaintiff’s objections serves to dislodge the conclusion of the

5

findings and recommendations that “[p]laintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate ‘actual injury’

6

by the alleged misconduct of prison officials.” (Doc. No. 95 at 3.) Plaintiff has failed to meet his

7

burden of demonstrating that any irreparable harm will likely result in the absence of a

8

preliminary injunction. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th

9

Cir. 1988) (citing L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202–

10

03 (9th Cir. 1980)). The granting of a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy never

11

awarded as of right.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)

12

(quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). As such, a plaintiff must

13

do more than merely allege imminent harm; “a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened

14

injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” Caribbean Marine Servs., 844 F.2d at

15

674. Even if the court accepts as true plaintiff’s contention that the named individuals stole

16

documents from him, that fact alone is insufficient to demonstrate that irreparable harm to

17

plaintiff is imminent. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is therefore denied.

18

For these reasons:

19

1.

20
21
22
23

The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2017 (Doc. No. 95) are adopted in
full; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motions for copies (Doc. Nos. 92–94) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 16, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3