Roberson v. Singh et al

Filing 20

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/28/2015 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court is derected to ASSIGN District Judge William B. Shubb to this case; RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 19 motion be denied; Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARENCE ROBERSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:14-cv-2302 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

SGT. SINGH, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff filed a document

18

entitled, “Plaintiff Clarence Roberson now targeted retaliation by CSP-SAC [California State

19

Prison, Sacramento] for filing a suit on Stockton CHCF [California Health Care Facility] mental

20

health facility.” (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff claims that since his transfer to CSP-SAC, his property

21

and incoming mail have been taken, and he’s been issued an allegedly false rules violation report.

22

Plaintiff seeks an emergency transfer and payment of $5,000 in compensatory damages for stress.

23

The undersigned construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion for injunctive relief.

24

The party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed

25

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that

26

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

27

Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d

28

1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief
1

1

hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean

2

Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

3

Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff

4

demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the

5

public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits

6

of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for

7

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious

8

questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after

9

Winter).

10

The principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to

11

render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur

12

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). As noted above, in addition to

13

demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary

14

injunction, plaintiff must show a “fair chance of success on the merits” of his claim. Sports

15

Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal citation

16

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

17

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

18

brought to trial. In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

19

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

20

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

21

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

22

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

23

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

24

U.S. 100 (1969).

25

Here, plaintiff’s claims regarding prison staff at CSP-SAC are unrelated to the claims on

26

which this action is proceeding, i.e., plaintiff’s claims that on August 31, 2014, while he was

27

housed at CHCF, defendants Singh and Cotter used excessive force on plaintiff, and the

28

remaining named defendants failed to take steps to prevent or stop them. Because the grounds of
2

1

plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief are unrelated to the merits of the instant action, the court is

2

unable to address plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief because such claims will not be heard on

3

the merits in the instant action. Moreover, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who

4

are not named as defendants herein.

5
6

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is
directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

7

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 19) be denied.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Dated: April 28, 2015

17
18
/robe2302.pi

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3