Armstrong v. Young et al

Filing 49

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/16/2013 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 48 request for injunctive relief be denied without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRADY ARMSTRONG, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. 2:12-cv-0123 TLN KJN P D. YOUNG, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On July 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a 17 document styled, “Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary & a Temporary Restraining Order.” 18 (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff raises myriad claims alleging ongoing acts of retaliation from January 19 25, 2013, through May 5, 2013, against plaintiff by staff at the California Substance Abuse 20 Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in Corcoran, California, as well as alleged deliberate indifference to 21 plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff asks the court to address plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 22 the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Plaintiff names employees at SATF as defendants, and 23 claims they are co-workers, agents or supervisors of the defendants named in the instant action. 24 Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining these SATF employees from engaging in retaliation, submitting 25 fabricated serious rule violation reports, and depriving plaintiff of medical care. 26 //// 1 1 However, in the operative complaint herein, plaintiff raises claims concerning specific 2 and unrelated events at High Desert State Prison that occurred in 2004 and 2005. (ECF No. 1.) 3 For example, plaintiff alleges that: 4 1. On June 3, 2004, defendant Chandler intentionally gave him a food tray contaminated 5 with spit, hair, chewing tobacco, feces and/or other foreign matter/objections, allegedly in 6 retaliation for plaintiff filing inmate appeals. (ECF No. 1 at 11.) 7 2. On January 18, 2005, defendant Turner intentionally spat on plaintiff’s head/face, 8 causing plaintiff to run his wheelchair into the wall/door jamb, in retaliation for plaintiff 9 submitting inmate appeals against defendant Turner and his co-workers. (ECF No. 1 at 13.) 10 3. On October 14, 2004, while being escorted by defendants Young and John Doe, 11 defendant Young intentionally pushed plaintiff’s wheelchair from the paved road onto the muddy 12 ground “flipping/throwing plaintiff out of his wheelchair. (ECF No. 1 at 9.) 13 None of the staff named in plaintiff’s motion are named as defendants herein. 14 Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 15 showing that the moving party is entitled to such relief. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 16 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). As provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a court may 17 issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the relative position of the parties pending trial on the 18 merits. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “The proper legal standard 19 for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on 20 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 21 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, 22 Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Thus, the 23 temporary relief sought by plaintiff must be connected to the allegations of the underlying 24 complaint. 25 26 In the instant case, plaintiff challenges concrete actions taken by defendants at High Desert State Prison in 2004 and 2005. Plaintiff’s motion is based on events that took place in 2 1 early 2013 at SATF. Because there is no relationship between the allegations in the operative 2 complaint and the relief sought against prison staff at SATF concerning plaintiff’s current claims, 3 the court cannot grant injunctive relief. 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s July 6, 2013 request for injunctive relief (ECF No. 48) be denied without prejudice. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 8 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 13 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: July 16, 2013 15 16 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 arms0123.pi 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?