Moore v. McDonald
Filing
49
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/1/2012 ORDERING that plaintiff's 45 motion for protective order is DENIED without prejudice. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MARIO K. MOORE,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. 2: 10-cv-3457 KJM KJN P
vs.
MICHAEL McDONALD, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action
17
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The only defendant is Michael McDonald, the Warden at High
18
Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). Plaintiff alleges that he has not received adequate medical care
19
for his diabetes, including proper doses of insulin and a proper diabetic diet.
20
On April 20, 2012 plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order. In this motion,
21
plaintiff alleges that he is being harassed because of the instant action and because he is a witness
22
in a case involving the death of inmate Ivory Martin. Most of the allegations of harassment
23
alleged in the motion for protective order appear to concern plaintiff’s status as a witness in the
24
Martin case.
25
26
On April 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a letter with the court also alleging harassment
based on the instant action and his status as a witness in the Martin case.
1
1
Although the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue directly, other circuits have
2
repeatedly held that a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show “[a] relationship between the
3
injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v.
4
Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); accord Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1250–51
5
(10th Cir. 2010); Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 299–300 (6th Cir. 2010);
6
Plaintiff’s claim that he is being harassed based on his status as a witness in the
7
Martin case is unrelated to the claims raised in the instant action. For that reason, plaintiff’s
8
claims alleging harassment based on his status as a witness in the Martin case should be raised in
9
a separate civil rights action.
10
Plaintiff’s claim that he is being harassed in retaliation for pursuing this action
11
may be raised in a motion for injunctive relief filed in the instant action. However, as plead in
12
his April 18, 2012 letter and April 20, 2012 motion for protective order, plaintiff’s claims of
13
retaliation for pursuing this action and harassment based on his status as a witness in the Martin
14
case cannot be distinguished. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for protective order is dismissed
15
without prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion for injunctive relief raising claims alleging
16
retaliation for pursuing the instant action only. Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation for pursuing the
17
instant action must be well supported.
18
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 20, 2012 motion
19
for protective order (Dkt. No. 45) is denied without prejudice.
20
DATED: June 1, 2012
21
22
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
mo3457.po
25
26
2
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?