Lal v. Felker et al
Filing
250
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/25/2014 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 189 motion for a preliminary injunction and 193 motion to compel, construed as a request for preliminary injunction, be denied. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AZHAR LAL,
12
No. 2:07-cv-2060-KJM-EFB P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
FELKER, et al.,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a request for an “injunction for a single cell and for the protection of
19
[his] legal property.” ECF No. 189. The filing is similar to an earlier motion for injunctive relief,
20
see ECF No. 174, denied on September 30, 2013. ECF No. 200. As in his earlier motion,
21
plaintiff says he fears that he will be forced to share a cell with an inmate with whom he is not
22
compatible, which will in turn, lead to violence. He also fears that prison officials may destroy
23
his legal property because in the past they have, allegedly falsified paperwork. Plaintiff has also
24
filed a “motion to compel [the] Clerk of the Court & California State Prison-Sacramento Mail
25
Room to follow . . . Federal Legal Mailing Procedures,” which the court construes as another
26
request for injunctive relief. ECF No. 193. For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that
27
the motions be denied.
28
/////
1
1
A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that
2
would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc.
3
v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871
4
F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching
5
power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc.,
6
326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). In order to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party
7
must demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable
8
harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
9
injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.
10
2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). The Ninth Circuit has
11
also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to preliminary injunctions—that is, balancing
12
the elements of the preliminary injunction test, so that a stronger showing of one element may
13
offset a weaker showing of another—survives Winter and continues to be valid. Alliance for Wild
14
Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010). “In other words, ‘serious questions
15
going to the merits,’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support
16
issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” Id.
17
In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction
18
“must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds
19
requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18
20
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
21
Here, plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown any
22
relationship between the preliminary relief sought and the subject matter of this lawsuit. This
23
action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims that defendants retaliated against him by interfering with his
24
diabetes treatment. See ECF Nos. 194, 200. In contrast, plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief
25
involve completely different issues not raised in this action; i.e., plaintiff’s claimed need for a
26
single cell, his allegations regarding the falsification of paperwork, and his allegations that prison
27
and court officials are not “following all legal mailing procedures.” Furthermore, apart from
28
plaintiff’s unsupported allegations, there is no evidence establishing that plaintiff is likely to
2
1
prevail on those unrelated claims or on his retaliation claims in this case, or that the injunctions
2
sought are necessary to preserve the court’s ability to grant effective relief on those claims and
3
that it is the least intrusive means for doing so.
4
Moreover, the allegations on which plaintiff bases his motion for preliminary injunctive
5
relief are properly the subject of another lawsuit and cannot be cannot be adjudicated in this
6
action, where they cannot be properly exhausted through the administrative appeals process. See
7
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) and Rhodes v.
8
Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (together holding that claims must be
9
exhausted prior to the filing of the original or supplemental complaint); Jones v. Felker, No. CIV
10
S-08-0096 KJM EFB P, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13730, at *11-15 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011); Fed.
11
R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (multiple defendants may be joined in an action only where the suit regards
12
“the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” or “any question of
13
law or fact common to all defendants”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for preliminary
14
injunctive relief must be denied.
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s May 16, 2013 motion for
16
a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 189) and August 2, 2013 motion to compel (ECF No. 193),
17
construed as a request for a preliminary injunction, be denied.
18
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
19
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
20
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
21
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
22
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
23
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
24
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
25
DATED: June 25, 2014.
26
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?