Alston v. City of Elk Grove et al
Filing
23
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/14/2011 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 13 motion to receive service of process via e-mail is GRANTED under the following conditions. Plaintiff will be permi tted to enroll in the court's electronic filing system on the condition that she personally appear at the Clerk's Office within fourteen (14) days of service of this order and provide: (1) a copy of this order; (2) proof of photo identifica tion; and (3) a General Delivery address, which can be obtained from the U.S. Postal Service. Upon plaintiff's compliance with these conditions, the Clerk shall enroll plaintiff in the ECF electronic filing system and shall create a docket entry reflecting plaintiff's compliance and enrollment. The Clerk shall immediately serve a copy of this order and the Court's 22 order on plaintiff via e-mail at liberty.justice.iv.all@gmail.com. Plaintiff will be GRANTED 28 days from th e date of service of this order to amend her complaint, if she elects to do so, in accordance with the court's 10/14/2011 order. IT IS ALSO HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs 14 motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction be denied. Motion referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CD ALSTON,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF ELK GROVE, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
No. CIV S-11-0678 KJM CKD PS
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
/
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This
17
proceeding was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28
18
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On July 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to receive service of process
19
through e-mail. (Dkt. No. 13.) That same day, plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary
20
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 14.) After reviewing the papers in
21
support of the motions, and for good cause appearing, the court FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
22
BACKGROUND
23
In this action, plaintiff primarily asserts claims for constitutional violations under
24
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for related state law torts. She alleges that defendant Lance McDaniel, a
25
City of Elk Grove police officer, stopped plaintiff’s vehicle without probable cause and
26
approached plaintiff in a hostile and aggressive manner. During the course of the traffic stop,
1
McDaniel allegedly pulled out the window of plaintiff’s vehicle with his hands, interrupted
2
plaintiff’s 911 call, pulled plaintiff out of her vehicle, and later forcefully yanked plaintiff to the
3
ground by her hair causing plaintiff to hit the ground face first. Plaintiff’s car was searched and
4
towed, and plaintiff was arrested. Although McDaniel is alleged to be the primary actor, plaintiff
5
contends that two other officers, defendants Chris Morrow and Jorge Benitez, later arrived at the
6
scene and were also involved in her detention and arrest. Jeff Murray, the supervisor of officers
7
McDaniel, Morrow, and Benitez, was also allegedly on the scene and had some interaction with
8
plaintiff in the course of her arrest. According to plaintiff, McDaniel filed false charges against
9
her and made various false statements in his report related to the incident, which were
10
corroborated by Morrow, Benitez, and Murray. The charges were later dismissed.
11
Subsequently, on March 11, 2011, plaintiff filed suit against McDaniel, Morrow,
12
Benitez, Murray, Robert Lehner (the Chief of Police), Craig Potter and Scott French
13
(investigators with the Elk Grove Police Department Bureau of Professional Standards), the Elk
14
Grove Police Department Bureau of Professional Standards, the Elk Grove Police Department,
15
and the City of Elk Grove.
16
On June 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
17
and dismissed her complaint with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 8.) Most recently, on October 14,
18
2011, after screening plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the court dismissed several
19
defendants and several of plaintiffs’ claims, granting plaintiff 28 days to amend her complaint
20
and cure the deficiencies outlined in the order. (Dkt. No. 22.) Because plaintiff’s complaint is
21
still in the screening stage, none of the defendants have been served with process.
22
DISCUSSION
23
Motion to Receive Service of Process Through E-mail
24
Plaintiff contends that she “has been displaced” and therefore “does not have an
25
address in which to receive any service of process.” (Dkt. No. 13.) She also contends that she no
26
longer has possession of her former post office box. (Id.)
2
1
In light of plaintiff’s representations, she will be permitted to enroll in the court’s
2
electronic filing (“ECF”) system on the condition that she personally appear at the Clerk’s Office
3
within fourteen (14) days of service of this order and provide: (1) a copy of this order; (2) proof
4
of photo identification; and (3) a General Delivery address, which can be obtained from the U.S.
5
Postal Service. However, plaintiff is cautioned that access to ECF will be terminated if she
6
makes unnecessary voluminous filings or otherwise abuses her access to ECF.
7
The court also notes that a copy of the court’s October 14, 2011 order (dkt. no. 22)
8
granting plaintiff leave to amend her complaint was served on plaintiff via mail and returned as
9
undeliverable, likely because plaintiff no longer has possession of her former post office box.
10
Consequently, the Clerk will be directed to serve a copy of this order and the October 14, 2011
11
order on plaintiff via e-mail, and plaintiff will be allowed 28 days from the date of service of this
12
order to amend her complaint, if she elects to do so, in accordance with the court’s October 14,
13
2011 order.
14
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction
15
The standards governing the issuance of temporary restraining orders are
16
“substantially identical” to those governing the issuance of preliminary injunctions. Stuhlbarg
17
Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).
18
Therefore, “[a] plaintiff seeking a [TRO] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
19
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
20
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’n,
21
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res.
22
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). A TRO or preliminary injunction
23
is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
24
entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, 129 S. Ct. at 376.
25
26
In the instant motion, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against various law
enforcement agencies throughout the Sacramento area. She describes several encounters with
3
1
law enforcement officers from different law enforcement agencies and police departments,
2
alleging illegal searches, detentions, arrests, and the use of excessive force. Plaintiff states that
3
there is a “definite likelihood that she will be targeted again” and claims that she “is in
4
immediate danger and fears for her safety.” (Dkt. No. 14, at p. 2.)
5
As an initial matter, plaintiff’s motion improperly requests injunctive relief
6
against several entities who are not even parties to this action, including the County of
7
Sacramento, the Sacramento County Sheriff Department, the City of Sacramento, and the City of
8
Sacramento Police Department. The court’s records reveal that, apart from the instant action,
9
plaintiff has filed actions against several different police departments in the broader Sacramento
10
metropolitan area. See 2:11-cv-2077-KJM-GGH (involving Sacramento County, the El Dorado
11
County Sheriff Department, Amador County, Alpine County, and the California Department of
12
Fish and Game); 2:11-cv-2078-JAM-GGH (involving the Sacramento County Sheriff
13
Department); 2:11-cv-2079-JAM-EFB (involving the Sacramento City Police Department); and
14
2:11-cv-2281-GEB-GGH (involving the Sacramento County Sheriff Department). Plaintiff
15
appears to be incorporating many of these claims and entities into the instant motion.
16
Moreover, plaintiff fails to show that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
17
absence of preliminary relief. While plaintiff allegedly had several dissatisfactory experiences
18
with law enforcement officials, these encounters have been with different police officers and
19
different police departments. Apart from plaintiff’s general belief that she will be targeted again
20
for a search, detention, or arrest, there is no evidence that several police departments in the
21
Sacramento area are engaging in a coordinated effort to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
22
The injunctive relief requested is also overly broad and impermissibly vague. For example,
23
plaintiff requests injunctive relief against “physical assault, harassment, bullying, and
24
infringement of civil rights” with respect to multiple law enforcement agencies. (Dkt. No. 14, at
25
p. 6.)
26
\\\\
4
1
Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, namely, her several actions under 42
2
U.S.C. § 1983, during which plaintiff will have an opportunity to have her claims against the
3
various defendants adjudicated on the merits. Presently, however, plaintiff fails to make a clear
4
showing that she is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a TRO or a preliminary injunction.
5
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
6
1. Plaintiff’s motion to receive service of process via e-mail (dkt. no. 13) is
7
granted under the following conditions. Plaintiff will be permitted to enroll in the court’s
8
electronic filing (“ECF”) system on the condition that she personally appear at the Clerk’s Office
9
within fourteen (14) days of service of this order and provide: (1) a copy of this order; (2) proof
10
of photo identification; and (3) a General Delivery address, which can be obtained from the U.S.
11
Postal Service.
12
2. Upon plaintiff’s compliance with these conditions, the Clerk shall enroll
13
plaintiff in the ECF electronic filing system and shall create a docket entry reflecting
14
plaintiff’s compliance and enrollment.
15
16
3. The Clerk shall immediately serve a copy of this order and the Court’s October
14, 2011 order (dkt. no. 22) on plaintiff via e-mail at liberty.justice.iv.all@gmail.com.
17
18
4. Plaintiff will be granted 28 days from the date of service of this order to amend
her complaint, if she elects to do so, in accordance with the court’s October 14, 2011 order.
19
20
IT IS ALSO HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction (dkt. no. 14) be denied.
21
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
22
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
23
fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file
24
written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
25
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
26
////
5
1
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.
2
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: November 14, 2011
4
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
CKD/5
9
alston.678.tro.fr.wpd
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?