Benson v. Davis Enterprise Newspaper et al
Filing
107
DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 06/21/11 ORDERING plaintiff's request to compel documents 93 is denied. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 93 is g ranted as follows: The parties may conduct discovery until 09/29/11. Motions to amend the complaint shall be filed no later than 09/29/11. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before 12/22/11. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 12/03/10 motion for injunctive relief be denied; and plaintiff's 03/10/11 motion for injunctive relief be denied. MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 60 and MOTION for injunctive relief 86 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M) Modified on 6/21/2011 (Plummer, M).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JEREMY JAMISON aka
DWAYNE GARRETT,
11
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-10-0124 KJM EFB P
12
vs.
13
14
15
BAILEY, et al.,
ORDER, DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
/
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
has recently been appointed counsel, but before the appointment he filed several pro se motions.
On March 9, 2011, the court ordered defendants to respond to plaintiff’s December 3,
20
2010 motion for injunctive relief. On March 10, 2011, plaintiff filed another motion for
21
injunctive relief. Defendants filed their oppositions to the two motions on March 14 and 16.
22
Plaintiff filed reply briefs on March 21 and 28.
23
The court also issued a discovery and scheduling order on March 9. Plaintiff filed a
24
motion for a 90-day extension of time of all discovery dates, a motion to compel counsel, and a
25
motion to compel CDCR to turn over documents on March 24. Defendants responded to these
26
motions on March 29; plaintiff replied on April 6; defendants responded to his reply on April 11;
1
1
and plaintiff responded to defendants’ response on April 20.1
2
I.
3
Request for Modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order
Plaintiff asks that the dates in the scheduling order be extended 90 days. Defendants do
4
not oppose plaintiff’s request to extend discovery deadlines. Dckt. No. 95. Good cause
5
appearing, plaintiff’s request is granted and the discovery and scheduling order is modified as set
6
out below. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
7
II.
8
Request to Compel Documents
Plaintiff seeks to compel CDCR to turn over documents, including 602s and documents
9
responsive to defendants’ discovery requests. Dckt. No. 93. Plaintiff states that he does not
10
know how to obtain the documents, but asks the court to mail defendants copies of all of the
11
documents he has submitted to the court.
12
Plaintiff does not allege that he has requested documents from defendants pursuant to
13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Therefore the court must deny his motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
14
37(a)(3), (4) (motion to compel can be brought if a party fails to answer or respond to a
15
discovery request or gives an evasive or incomplete answer).
16
Plaintiff is informed that defendants already have access to all of the documents he has
17
submitted to the court. Moreover, he is only obligated to produce documents to defendants that
18
are in his “possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If he is unable to obtain copies of
19
the documents that defendants request, he need not produce those documents to defendants.
20
III.
21
22
23
24
Motions for Preliminary Injunction
As set out in the court’s previous order, plaintiff’s first motion for injunctive relief states
in part:
Plaintiff reasserts that he is suffering irreparable injury by refusal of medical
treatment by being in defendants’ custody, by still being forced to walk great
distances, despite his medical disabilities . . . . Deliberately being kept away from
25
1
26
Plaintiff also filed a pro se motion for preliminary injunction on June 16, 2011, after
counsel was appointed to represent him. This motion will be ruled on in a later order.
2
1
2
3
the legal library and services, which will hurt his complaint against the
defendants, and create a deliberate indifference and biasness, refusal to treat his
Hep C mental health issue and others [illegible] in the late Nov motion . . . like
the pain meds that I should be on and have not been given back upon my return
from out of state . . . this current retaliation is real and tangible . . .
4
In a separate filing, plaintiff states the following in support of his injunction request: after
5
two weeks at Deuel Vocational Institute, he had not been issued his mental health, pain, asthma,
6
and diabetic medications; he had not been put on the kitchen list for a kosher diet; he was not
7
issued an ID; and he has not been issued his Olson review of his files. See Dckt. No. 61 at 1-2.
8
He further states that despite his mobility and pain issues, he has been refused a wheelchair and
9
has been forced to walk over 1000 feet round trip to the dining hall. Id. at 4.
10
Defendants’ opposition does not address the merits of plaintiff’s specific complaints.
11
Dckt. No. 88. Rather, defendants argue that the court does not have jurisdiction to grant
12
plaintiff’s motion. At the time plaintiff filed the request for injunctive relief he was incarcerated
13
at Deuel Vocational Institution; however, at the time of defendants’ opposition, he was
14
incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. Defendants also argue that the court may not enjoin
15
“defendants not before it;” that “it is obvious” that plaintiff seeks to enjoin CDCR, “and that
16
entity is not before the court.” Id. at 3. Defendants further state, “Since the CDCR is not before
17
the court, no generalized injunction may issue.” Id.2
18
Plaintiff’s more recent motion for a preliminary injunction states that “over the past two
19
weeks” he was raped and beaten by a lifer cellmate. Dckt. No. 86 at 2. Plaintiff is transgender.
20
Id. The cellmate was known to have raped past cellmates and to be violent. Id. CDCR staff
21
members deliberately gave plaintiff this cellmate in order to hurt or kill him in retaliation for
22
complaints he filed. Id. at 1. Plaintiff states that he made “repeated cries for help to the mental
23
24
25
26
2
Although the court does not recommend granting a preliminary injunction in this case,
defendants’ argument that the court does not have the power to enjoin CDCR is rejected. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (an order granting an injunction or restraining order binds the parties, the
parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, as well as other persons who are in
active concert or participation with anyone described above).
3
1
counselor via the sick call forms, and was ignored.” Id. He was taken to the hospital where he
2
received a rape kit and a DNA test. Id. He asks that the court enjoin CDCR from celling him
3
with lifers. Id. at 3.
4
Again, defendants’ opposition does not address the merits of plaintiff’s request. See
5
Dckt. No. 90. Defendants’ opposition3 argues that because the operative complaint in this case
6
contains only allegations against officers Bailey, Johnson and Shaid, who are employed at DVI,
7
and plaintiff claims he was assaulted while incarcerated at Corcoran, “[t]his court is therefore
8
without power to command or prohibit any action at that facility.” Id. at 2.
9
In response, plaintiff writes that when he is released, he will be on parole, and in the
10
event that he is returned to prison, he wants to have an injunction already in place. Dckt. No. 97.
11
He alleges that, shortly after he was raped and beaten, he was moved to another yard, where he
12
was forced to shower with a group of up to eight inmates. Id. at 4. Plaintiff is transgender and
13
has breasts. Id. He complained to the officer who oversaw the move and to the Warden but his
14
complaint “fell on deaf ears.” Id.
15
A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that
16
would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc.
17
v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871
18
F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching
19
power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc.,
20
326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). In order to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party
21
must demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable
22
harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
23
injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th
24
Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). The Ninth
25
26
3
The opposition consists of less than a full page of text.
4
1
Circuit has also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to preliminary injunctions-that
2
is, balancing the elements of the preliminary injunction test, so that a stronger showing of one
3
element may offset a weaker showing of another-survives Winter and continues to be valid.
4
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010).
5
Plaintiff’s change of address shows that he was released from prison and is now
6
incarcerated in the Yolo County Jail. As he is no longer in prison, his motions requesting
7
changes in the conditions of his confinement in prison cannot be granted. His request for
8
injunctive relief is therefore moot.
9
Plaintiff argues that he may return to prison at some point, and would like to have an
10
injunction in place so that, if this does happen, he is not housed with lifers. But such a concern
11
is speculative. In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any
12
preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the
13
harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
14
correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). If plaintiff finds that his conditions of confinement
15
violate his constitutional rights, he may file a new lawsuit and a motion for preliminary
16
injunction at that time.
17
Although plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction must be denied, he raises serious
18
allegations in these motions. Plaintiff has filed many documents containing many allegations
19
regarding the conditions of his confinement at several institutions. Currently, this action
20
proceeds on plaintiff’s claims that he almost died because defendant Bailey did not “call a man
21
down” when he was having an asthma attack; that plaintiff was forced to walk up steep steps
22
despite his disability; and that defendants Shaid and Johnson removed him from his cell and
23
threatened him so that he would withdraw his 602 complaints regarding these events. See Dckt.
24
No. 44 at 3. He also alleges that correctional officers intentionally celled him with a known
25
rapist. In denying the motion for preliminary injunction the court does not reach the merits of
26
these allegations nor of any motion to amend the complaint to the extent that the allegations were
5
1
not included in the complaint.
2
IV.
Conclusion
3
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
4
1. Plaintiff’s request to compel documents is denied; and
5
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is granted as follows:
6
a. The parties may conduct discovery until September 29, 2011. Any motions
7
necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than July 31, 2011.
9
10
b. Motions to amend the complaint shall be filed no later than September 29,
2011.
11
12
c. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before December 22, 2011. Motions
shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 7 of the order filed November 30, 2010.
13
d. The court will schedule pretrial proceedings, if necessary, upon the resolution
14
of any pretrial motions filed. Requests to modify this schedule will be looked upon with disfavor
15
and must be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
16
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
17
1. Plaintiff’s December 3, 2010 motion for injunctive relief be denied, and
18
2. Plaintiff’s March 10, 2011 motion for injunctive relief be denied.
19
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
20
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
21
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
22
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
23
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
24
////
25
////
26
////
6
1
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
2
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
DATED: June 21, 2011.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
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?