Richard S. Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 85

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's 84 Motion for Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/9/2021. Objections to F&R due within TWENTY-ONE DAYS. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON PRICE, et al.,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED

Defendants.
(ECF No. 84)

16

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
TWENTY-ONE DAYS

17
18

Case No. 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff Richard Scott Kindred (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in

19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is
20
21
22

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order of Protection of Plaintiff’s Religious Items During a Search of
Plaintiff’s Dorm Room for Contraband, which the Court construes as a motion for injunctive
relief. (ECF No. 84.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s

23
motion be denied.
24
I.
25
26

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

In the motion, Plaintiff states that, on June 15, 2021, Plaintiff’s A.M. Shift Lead at the
Department of State Hospitals—Coalinga (“DSH-Coalinga”) warned an officer that Plaintiff was

27
Native American and his religious items were not to be tampered with. (Id. at 1.) The officer went
28
1

1

in and disregarded the Shift Lead’s order and Plaintiff was not allowed to be present. (Id.) When

2

Plaintiff returned, he discovered that his altar had been searched and certain items in the alter

3

were mishandled. (Id.) Plaintiff requests that the Court take “proper action[.]” (Id. at 2.)

4

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance

9

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986); accord S.E.C. v. Ross,

10

504 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n order for the court to assert personal jurisdiction over

11

a party-in-interest, the party must be properly served.”). Relatedly, under Federal Rule of Civil

12

Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents,

13

servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or

14

participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based

15

on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”

16

Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015).

17

An injunction must be “(1) directed to a party, (2) enforceable by contempt, and (3) designed to

18

accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint in more than

19

preliminary fashion.” Orange Cnty. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 52 F.3d 821, 825-

20

26 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

21

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, [a party] must show either (1) a likelihood of success

22

on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) the existence of serious questions

23

going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the party’s] favor.” Nike, Inc. v.

24

McCarthy, 379 F.3d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 2004)

25

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the

26

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find that the “relief [sought] is

27

narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right,

28

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.”
2

1

III.

2

The Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion.

3

First, Plaintiff’s motion goes beyond the allegations of the complaint. This case is

4

proceeding on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Brandon Price, J. Corona, Jorge Lopez, and

5

John/Jane Does 1-5 for violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable

6

search and seizure, against Defendants J. Corona and Jorge Lopez for violation of Plaintiff’s First

7

Amendment right to freely exercise his religion, and against John/Jane Does 6-10 for violation of

8

Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to access the courts. (See ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff’s claims

9

generally relate to two searches of Plaintiff’s dorm room that occurred in January and June of

10

2018. Here, Plaintiff’s motion concerns a separate search of his dorm room on June 15, 2021,

11

which occurred after this case was filed and appears to have no relationship to the searches at

12

issue in this case. As Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief based on claim(s) not pled in the

13

complaint, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. Pac. Radiation Oncology,

14

810 F.3d at 633 (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the

15

complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”).

16

DISCUSSION

Second, it is not clear who Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief against. The unidentified

17

Shift Lead and officer described in the motion do not appear to be defendants in this case. It is

18

improper to direct an injunction to individuals who are not parties to this action. See Orange

19

Cnty., 52 F.3d at 825-26.

20

Third, it is not clear what relief Plaintiff is requesting. Plaintiff must show why the

21

proposed injunction “is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

22

of the Federal Right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the

23

Federal Right.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Here, Plaintiff only makes the blanket request that

24

the Court take “proper action[.]” This is insufficient.
Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be

25
26

denied.

27

///

28

///
3

1

IV.

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

3
4

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

injunctive relief (ECF No. 84) be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge

5

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

6

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

7

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

8

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within

9

the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d

10

834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 9, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4