Mitchell v. Schwartzenegger et al
Filing
124
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/26/13 ORDERING plaintiff's motion to dispense with the requirement of security 117 is denied without prejudice. The clerk of the court is directed to se nd plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 USC 1983. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 116 be denied. MOTION for injunctive relief 116 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,
12
13
14
No. 2:09-cv-3012 JAM KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER and
J. HAVILAND, et al.,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
17
18
Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This civil rights action is
19
proceeding on plaintiff’s claims that, while he was housed at California State Prison-Solano
20
(“CSP-SOL”), defendant Rosario used excessive force on plaintiff on August 5, 2008, and that
21
defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire retaliated against plaintiff in early 2009. On November
22
12, 2009, plaintiff was transferred from CSP-SOL to the California State Prison in Corcoran
23
(“CSP-COR”). (ECF No. 6.) On April 15, 2011, plaintiff was transferred from CSP-COR to the
24
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran (“SATF”). (ECF
25
No. 39.)
26
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
27
28
Plaintiff’s December 4, 2013 motion for temporary restraining order is before the court.
(ECF No. 15.) In this 75 page filing, plaintiff sets forth a list of alleged constitutional violations
1
1
from August 5, 2008, while plaintiff was housed at CSP-SOL, to November 22, 2013, while
2
plaintiff was, and remains, housed at SATF. (ECF No. 116 at 2-15.) As noted by defendants,
3
many of the alleged violations were allegedly committed in retaliation for plaintiff’s prison
4
appeals and lawsuits, all of which occurred at CSP-COR or the SATF. Plaintiff seeks an order
5
restraining defendants in Mitchell v. Pena, Case No. 1:11-cv-1205 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal., Fresno
6
Div.) from retaliating against plaintiff, and from violating his constitutional rights. Liberally
7
construed, in his motion plaintiff also seeks a court order directing defendants Rosario, Garcia,
8
and McGuire to contact all the named individuals located at CSP-COR and SATF and inform
9
them of the court’s order directing them to abstain from such alleged actions.
10
In their opposition, defendants contend that this court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order
11
restraining the actions of CSP-COR and SATF employees because none of the defendants named
12
herein work at CSP-COR or SATF, and none have the authority to ensure compliance with the
13
court’s order at CSP-COR or SATF.
14
On December 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a letter in which he claims that in his request for
15
temporary restraining order he asked that the officers not move plaintiff from Cell D-4-250L.
16
(ECF No. 123.) However, plaintiff claims that officers at SATF read plaintiff’s motion and
17
moved plaintiff on December 1, 2013, to a cell with feces on the walls. Plaintiff contends that
18
SATF staff continue to harass and retaliate against plaintiff.
19
Upon review of plaintiff’s motion and supporting documents, as set forth more fully
20
below, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion should be denied.
21
Legal Standard for Injunctive Relief
22
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is an
23
extraordinary and temporary “fix” that the court may issue without notice to the adverse party if,
24
in an affidavit or verified complaint, the movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable
25
injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
26
opposition.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to
27
preserve the status quo pending a fuller hearing. See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see also, L. R.
28
231(a). It is the practice of this district to construe a motion for temporary restraining order as a
2
1
motion for preliminary injunction. Local Rule 231(a); see also, e.g., Aiello v. OneWest Bank,
2
2010 WL 406092, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (providing that “‘[t]emporary restraining orders are
3
governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions’”) (citations omitted).
4
The party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed
5
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that
6
the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.
7
Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d
8
1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief
9
hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean
10
Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).
11
Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff
12
demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the
13
public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits
14
of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for
15
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious
16
questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after
17
Winter).
18
The principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to
19
render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
20
R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). As noted above, in addition to
21
demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary
22
injunction, plaintiff must show a “fair chance of success on the merits” of his claim. Sports
23
Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal citation
24
omitted). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there
25
will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is
26
brought to trial. In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any
27
preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the
28
////
3
1
harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
2
correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
3
In addition, as a general rule this court is unable to issue an order against individuals who
4
are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395
5
U.S. 100 (1969).
6
Analysis
7
In the instant motion, plaintiff challenges actions that took place at CSP-COR and SATF,
8
both of which are in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, against individuals
9
employed at CSP-COR and SATF, who are not named as defendants herein. However, in the
10
operative complaint herein, plaintiff challenges concrete actions taken in 2008 and 2009 at CSP-
11
SOL by defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire. The facts underlying plaintiff’s claims for
12
injunctive relief are unrelated to plaintiff’s claims in this action, and occurred long after the
13
incidents at issue herein. This court lacks jurisdiction to address claims not contained within the
14
operative complaint because the claims will not be given a hearing on the merits at trial.
15
Moreover, plaintiff’s claims supporting his motion for injunctive relief are based on
16
unrelated actions taken by correctional staff not named as defendants herein. “Unrelated claims
17
against different defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
18
Cir. 2007). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over the individuals located at CSP-COR and
19
SATF named in the motion. Plaintiff cannot defeat this jurisdictional hurdle by simply reiterating
20
his unrelated claims against defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire, or asking the court to
21
direct defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire to notify prison staff at CSP-COR or SATF.
22
Finally, plaintiff is no longer housed at CSP-SOL, and is therefore no longer subject to
23
actions by defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire. Thus, motions for injunctive relief against
24
defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire are moot. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 100.
25
Plaintiff should not renew motions for injunctive relief in this action because this action proceeds
26
solely as to plaintiff’s claims that arose in 2008 and 2009.
27
28
The court is concerned that plaintiff is engaged in a hunger strike in an effort to get SATF
prison officials to address his myriad concerns concerning alleged staff harassment and
4
1
retaliation. However, on two prior occasions, plaintiff was advised that this court lacked
2
jurisdiction to hear claims not included in the operative complaint. (ECF Nos. 30, 72.) Indeed,
3
plaintiff is delaying his efforts to obtain relief by attempting to pursue such unrelated claims in
4
this action. In addition, plaintiff is presently pursuing litigation in Mitchell v. Pena, Case No.
5
1:11-cv-1205 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal., Fresno Div.), as well as in Mitchell v. Norton, Case No. 1:12-
6
cv-0331 GSA (E.D. Cal., Fresno Div.), and may seek injunctive relief against pertinent
7
defendants in those actions. Or, plaintiff may file a new civil rights action in the Fresno Division
8
of the Eastern District of California. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form
9
for filing a civil rights action.
10
The claims on which plaintiff’s motion is predicated are not included in the operative
11
complaint on which this action is proceeding, and do not raise allegations against the defendants
12
remaining in this action. For that reason, the claims will not be given a hearing on the merits at
13
trial. Thus, the court cannot grant plaintiff injunctive relief, and recommends that plaintiff’s
14
motion for such relief be denied. In light of this recommendation, plaintiff’s motion to dispense
15
with security is denied without prejudice.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1. Plaintiff’s motion to dispense with the requirement of security (ECF No. 117) is denied
18
19
20
21
22
without prejudice;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No.
116) be denied.
23
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
24
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
25
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
26
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
27
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
28
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
5
1
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
2
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: December 26, 2013
4
5
mitc3012.tro3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?