Harris v. Malakkla et al

Filing 30

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 09/20/18 DENYING 23 motion to waive payment. The Clerk of court shall randomly assign a district judge to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 25 be denied. Motion 25 assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 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

DAVID D. HARRIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2040 DB P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

N. MALAKKLA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17
18

Plaintiff alleges he is not being provided proper pain medication in violation of the Eighth

19

Amendment. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to waive payment (ECF No. 23) and

20

plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 25).

21

MOTION TO WAIVE PAYMENT

22

On May 31, 2018, plaintiff was directed to provide service documents and copies of the

23

complaint so that defendants could be served. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff moved for and was

24

granted an extension of time because he was having difficulty getting copies of the complaint

25

made to submit along with the USM-285 forms to effect service. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff

26

requested that the court allow him to pay for copies after he receives his payment from the

27

settlement in Harris v. Kennedy, Case No. 2:16-cv-0588 MCE DB P. (ECF No. 23.)

28

////
1

1

Plaintiff submitted the service documents (ECF No. 19) and has now provided the court with

2

one copy of the amended complaint filed November 21, 2017 (ECF No. 14). As a one-time

3

courtesy the court has provided the additional copies of the complaint so that defendants may be

4

served. In a separate order, the court will instruct the U.S. Marshall to serve the complaint. Any

5

future requests for copies will only be provided upon payment of the copy fee at $ 0.50 per page.

6

Because the court has provided the required copies plaintiff’s motion to waive payment will be

7

denied as moot.

8

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction and restraining order directing medical officials at

10

CSP-COR to provide plaintiff with methadone or morphine to treat pain associated with his

11

carpal tunnel syndrome. Plaintiff claims that officials at CSP-COR are merely upholding the

12

medical decision of the defendants named in the complaint.

13
14

I.

Legal Standards

A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that he is likely to succeed on the

15

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

16

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

17

Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-26 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious

25

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

26

Winter).

27

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

28

render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
2

1

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this required showing is

2

that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the

3

claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial. Preliminary injunctive relief is

4

not appropriate until the court finds that the plaintiff’s complaint presents cognizable claims. See

5

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court

6

may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter

7

jurisdiction over the claims . . . .”).

8
9

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction
must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds

10

requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18

11

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Further, an injunction against individuals not parties to an action is strongly

12

disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is

13

elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . . . resulting from litigation in which he is not

14

designated as a party . . . .”).1

15

II.

Analysis
Plaintiff directed his motion toward employees at California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-

16
17

COR”), who are not named as defendants in this action. An injunction against individuals not

18

parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

19

395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969).

20

Additionally, plaintiff has not demonstrated that in the absence of preliminary relief he will

21

imminently suffer irreparable harm. “Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury

22

sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

However, the fact that injunctive relief is not sought from one not a party to litigation does not
automatically preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 16519(a) permits
the court to issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the
usages and principles of law.” The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and
preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir.
1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in
appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation.
United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977).
3

1

(citing Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Rather, a

2

presently existing actual threat must be shown, although the injury need not be certain to occur.

3

See Hazeltine, 395 U.S. at 130-31; F.D.I.C. v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997);

4

Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674. Based on attachments filed with the motion it appears that

5

prison officials are treating plaintiff’s pain, but that plaintiff disagrees with the manner of

6

treatment. Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm without an

7

injunction.

8
9

Further, at the pleading stage, the court cannot determine questions of the claim’s merit
which require submission of evidence, versus a determination as to whether a claim has been

10

plausibly stated. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). The court is presently

11

unable to determine the likelihood of plaintiff’s success on the merits of his claim. Therefore, the

12

court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied.

13

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this case; and

15

2.

16

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

17

Plaintiff’s motion to waive payment (ECF No. 23) is denied as moot.

injunction (ECF No. 25) be denied.

18

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

19

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days

20

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

21

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

22

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

23

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

24

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

25

Dated: September 20, 2018

26
27

DLB:12
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/harr2040.pi

28
4