Crane v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 247

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/12/2021 ADOPTING 232 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 231 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING 244 Motion for Injunctive Relief. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD J. CRANE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-KJN

v.

ORDER

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Richard J. Crane (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil

17
18

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 9, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

20
21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Following extensions of

23

time, on June 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document styled, “Motion for Injunctive relief . . . and

24

Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Magistrate Judge and Objections.” (ECF No. 244 at 1.)1

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s reference to a motion for reconsideration is unclear. Plaintiff was granted an
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying his motion for
appointment of counsel, which Plaintiff filed on April 12, 2021 (ECF No. 233), and which is
addressed separately. Plaintiff identifies no other order for which he seeks reconsideration. (See
ECF No. 244.)
1
1

1

In his objections, Plaintiff claims to move for injunctive relief, again based on the March

2

18, 2021 assault outside the law library at California State Prison, Los Angeles (“CSP-LAC”),

3

and addressed in the April 9, 2021 findings and recommendations at issue here. In his earlier

4

motion, Plaintiff claimed that while he was standing in front of the law library, he was attacked

5

by an inmate employed by prison officials to assault Plaintiff in order to obstruct and hinder

6

Plaintiff’s access to the Court in this case. (ECF No. 231 at 2.) Plaintiff now claims that on

7

March 11, 2021, he assisted lawyers Rosen and Bien with a class action prisoner civil rights case

8

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and sought personal medical supplies from

9

guards at CSP-LAC. (ECF No. 244 at 2.) The court in Armstrong had issued an injunction, and

10

guards allegedly had Plaintiff assaulted on March 18, 2021, which was planned the day before

11

(March 17, 2021). (ECF No. 233 at 2 (citing Armstrong v. Newsom, 94-cv-02307 CW, 2021 WL

12

933106 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021)).)2 Plaintiff now contends the assault was planned in

13

retaliation for Plaintiff assisting the lawyers in the Armstrong case. (ECF No. 244 at 2.) Plaintiff

14

seeks relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and asks the Court to allow him to file

15

further declarations in support thereof.

16

Legal Standards

17

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he “is likely to succeed

18

on the merits, . . . likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, . . . the

19

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

20

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Ninth Circuit has held that, even if

21

the moving party cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, injunctive relief may issue if

22

“serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the

23

plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that

24

there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” All. for

25

2

26
27
28

The district court in Armstrong found that “additional remedial measures are necessary to
end the ongoing violations of the [Armstrong Remedial Plan] and ADA,” and “requiring [the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] to take steps to stop retaliation in
violation of the ADA at [CSP-LAC, CSP-Corcoran, Substance Abuse Treatment Facility,
California Institute for Women], and [Kern Valley State Prison] is necessary.” Armstrong, 2021
WL 933106, at *19, 23.
2

1

the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted).

2

Under either formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied if the

3

probability of success on the merits is low. See Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy,

4

72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of

5

the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of

6

success on the merits.’”) (quoting Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir.

7

1984)). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable

8

injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668,

9

674 (9th Cir. 1988). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of

10

right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (citation omitted).

11

Finally, the pendency of an action does not give the court jurisdiction over prison officials

12

in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United

13

States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this

14

action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Id. An injunction

15

against individuals who are not parties to the action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio

16

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

17

Discussion

18

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

19

Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

20

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

21

analysis. The undersigned agrees that the use of a Martinez report is not appropriate, as explained

22

by the magistrate judge. (See ECF No. 232 at 3–4.)
Plaintiff’s renewed motion for injunctive relief is again based on the March 18, 2021

23
24

assault by nonparties at CSP-LAC. Plaintiff now alleges that the assault occurred because

25

Plaintiff assisted the lawyers in Armstrong.3 But the instant action involves incidents that took

26

3

27
28

In connection with a prior motion, Plaintiff provided declarations from two inmates who
witnessed the assault; both inmates declare that “it is well known throughout the facility” that
female Correctional Officer Garcia paid the perpetrator to assault Plaintiff “due to words they had
earlier in the week in housing unit one.” (ECF No. 233 at 12–13.)
3

1

place in 2009 to 2013 by defendants at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), and Plaintiff alleges

2

no facts demonstrating that any of the Defendants or inmates involved in the incidents at HDSP

3

were involved in the March 18, 2021 assault at CSP-LAC. In addition to establishing imminent

4

irreparable harm, a request for injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the

5

complaint. See Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th

6

Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint,

7

the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Because Plaintiff fails to

8

demonstrate any connection between the March 18, 2021 assault by nonparties at CSP-LAC and

9

his underlying claims concerning incidents at HDSP over eight years ago, his renewed motion for

10

injunctive relief is DENIED.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. The April 9, 2021 Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 232) are ADOPTED IN

13

FULL;

14

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 231) is DENIED; and

15

3. Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 244) is DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: July 12, 2021

18
19
20
21

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4