West v. Pettigrew et al

Filing 129

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/20/14 granting 127 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to file an opposition to the motion to c ompel. No further extension of time will be granted. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 03/17/14 motion for preliminary injunction 128 be denied. MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 128 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections duw tihin 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

MACK A. WEST,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-1692 JAM CKD P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS &

RYAN PETTIGREW, et al.,

RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

19

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Presently before the court are plaintiff’s motions for

20

preliminary injunction and for further extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’

21

motion to compel, both filed on March 17, 2014. ECF Nos. 127, 128. For the reasons discussed

22

below, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied and

23

will grant plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time.

24

I. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

25

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well established. To

26

prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits and the

27

possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships

28

tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692,
1

1

700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th

2

Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point

3

being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any

4

formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

5

irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

6

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

7

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary

8

injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the

9

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

10
11

harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Initially, the principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s

12

power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See C. Wright & A. Miller, 11

13

Federal Practice and Procedure, §2947 (1973). In addition to demonstrating that he will suffer

14

irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show a “fair

15

chance of success on the merits” of his claim. Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press

16

International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982), quoting Benda v. Grand Lodge of

17

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir.

18

1979). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there

19

will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is

20

brought to trial.

21

In addition, as a general rule this court is unable to issue an order against individuals who

22

are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395

23

U.S. 100 (1969).

24

Here, plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction ordering a number of non-parties to refrain

25

from obstructing plaintiff’s efforts to interview inmate witnesses currently housed in other prisons

26

for purposes of obtaining evidence in support of his claims against defendants. Plaintiff further

27

seeks an injunction against the Warden and Litigation Coordinator at California Medical Facility

28

(“CMF”), both of whom are non-parties to this action, in connection with the alleged failure of
2

1

the medical and mental health staff at CMF to provide plaintiff with his mental health records,

2

which he claims are needed to advance his claims against defendants.

3

Plaintiff makes no allegations in his motion for preliminary injunction with respect to the

4

defendants named in this action. As stated above, this court is unable to issue an order against

5

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp, 395 U.S. at

6

112. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion should be denied for this reason alone.

7

Furthermore, the allegations in the motion at bar arise from events that occurred in late

8

2013 and early 2014, well after the 2008 incidents on which the action at bar is based, and are

9

only tangentially related to plaintiff’s cause of action. The allegations in the motion appear to be

10

related to plaintiff’s frustrations in trying to obtain certain discovery items. A preliminary

11

injunction is an improper procedural device for granting plaintiff the relief sought. The Federal

12

Rules of Civil Procedure provide plaintiff with a number of procedural devices which he can use

13

in seeking to obtain the discovery items he identifies in his motion.
The motion also implicates plaintiff’s right to access the courts. In Lewis v. Casey, 518

14
15

U.S. 343 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that prison inmates have a constitutionally

16

protected right to access the courts to bring civil rights actions to challenge their conditions of

17

confinement and to bring challenges to their criminal convictions. 518 U.S. at 351. The right of

18

access to the courts “guarantees no particular methodology but rather the conferral of a capability

19

-- the capability of bringing contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement

20

before the courts.” Id. at 356. In order to demonstrate a cognizable threat to this right, plaintiff

21

must present evidence that defendants by their acts will prevent him from bringing, or cause him

22

to lose, an actionable claim of this type. Id.

23

Plaintiff has not made the required showing on the motion at bar. Specifically, the record

24

before this court does not support a finding that plaintiff is threatened with irreparable harm by

25

defendants to his ability to litigate this action.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be

26
27

denied.

28

////
3

1

II. MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

2

Plaintiff has filed his third request for an extension of time to file an opposition to

3

defendants’ December 11, 2013, motion to compel. ECF No. 127. Good cause appearing, the

4

request will be granted. No further extensions of time will be granted.

5

III. CONCLUSION

6

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 127) is granted; and

8

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an opposition

9
10
11

to the motion to compel. No further extensions of time will be granted.
Furthermore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s March 17, 2014 motion
for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 128) be DENIED.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

14

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

15

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

16

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

17

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

18

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

19

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

Dated: March 20, 2014

21
22

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
4