Tracye B. Washington v. Stark et al
Filing
44
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 42 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED re 29 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/23/2019. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
12
E. STARK, et.al.,
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
Case No.: 1:18-cv-00564-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE
DENIED
[ECF No. 42]
Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed January 22,
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2019.
19
I.
20
DISCUSSION
21
A.
22
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural
23
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). For each form of relief sought in federal court,
24
Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield
25
v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under
26
threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and
27
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the
Legal Standards
28
1
1
defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.
2
Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
3
Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which
4
provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall
5
extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or
6
plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such
7
relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,
8
and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. '
9
3626(a)(1)(A). Thus, the federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue equitable
10
orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violations which
11
form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Steel Co. v.
12
Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (1998).
13
B.
14
Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. Plaintiff
15
seeks an order “enjoining Defendants, the Mental Health Services Delivery System (MHSDS) at Kern
16
Valley State Prison (KVSP) and Custody staff employed at KVSP, from using “Outpatient Housing
17
Unit” (OHU) cells at the prison for the purpose of monitoring Inmates placed on Suicide-Watch
18
Observation status.” (Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff submits that his request for a copy of the suicide watch
19
observation notes/records for February 5 and 6, 2018, was denied because the documents were not in
20
his medical file. (Id. at 8.)
21
Analysis
Plaintiff is advised that “[f]ederal courts have the implied or inherent power to issue
22
preservation orders as part of their general authority ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
23
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F.Supp.2d
24
1063, 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135-36
25
(2004)). Spoliation occurs when a party destroys, significantly alters, or fails to preserve evidence in
26
pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995,
27
1001 (9th Cir. 2002). The authority to impose sanctions for spoliation arises from a court’s inherent
28
powers to control the judicial process. Medical Laboratory Mgmt. Consultants v. American
2
1
Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th Cir. 2002). The exercise of a court’s inherent
2
powers must be applied with “restraint and discretion” and only to the degree necessary to redress the
3
abuse. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991); see also Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric
4
Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir. 1994) (courts should choose “the least onerous sanction
5
corresponding to the willfulness of the destructive at and the prejudice suffered by the victim”).
6
A party seeking sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must establish the following
7
three elements: (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at
8
the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind” and (3)
9
that the evidence was “relevant” to the party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact
10
could find that it would support that claim or defense. Zubulake v. USB Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D.
11
212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin’l Corp., 306 F.3d 99,
12
108 (2d Cir. 2002)). “After considering these factors, a court must then consider all available
13
sanctions and determine the appropriate one.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 881
14
F.Supp.2d 1132, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The party seeking spoliation sanctions has the burden of
15
establishing the elements of a spoliation claim. Centrifugal Force, Inc. v. Softnet Communication,
16
Inc., 783 F.Supp.2d 736, 740 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
17
Plaintiff’s motion is not premised on any showing that relevant evidence has been destroyed.
18
While Plaintiff contends that a request for the suicide watch observation notes/records were not
19
located within his medical file, the Court cannot determine that such evidence is relevant or that it was
20
lost or intentionally destroyed during the pendency of this action. Zubalake, 220 F.R.D. at 220.
21
Discovery in this action is ongoing and the discovery deadline is currently set for June 9, 2019. To the
22
extent there is a dispute over whether certain evidence exists and/or should be disclosed, the proper
23
procedural mechanism is to file a motion to compel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
24
injunction should be denied.
25
II.
26
RECOMMENDATION
27
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a
28
preliminary injunction be denied.
3
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
1
2
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days
3
after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections
4
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
5
Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
6
result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
7
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 23, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?