Cacciaguidi v. Reinke et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 36 Motion to Compel; granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend ; denying 13 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff shall have until 10/8/2010 to file her second amended complaint. No further extensions of time to amend the complaint shall be allowed. Signed by Judge Ronald E Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

Cacciaguidi v. Reinke et al

Doc. 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

G R E T C H E N ANN CACCIAGUIDI, C a s e No. 4:09-CV-343-REB Plaintiff, v. B R E N T REINKE, OLIVIA CRAVEN, B R U C E WELLS-MOORE, JODI G R U E N D L E R , DONALD EASTEPPE, a n d JOHN DOES 1-50, individually and in th e ir official capacities, Defendants. M E M O R A N D U M DECISION AND ORDER

IN T R O D U C T IO N B e f o re the Court is Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. 13) for Order to Show Cause for P re lim in a ry Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The motion for TRO a n d attached affidavit of Plaintiff were filed on December 30, 2009. Since that time, the C o u rt has issued an Initial Review Order and conducted two Triage Conferences, and P la in tif f has been appointed stand-by counsel. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Enlargement of Time (Dkt. 36), filed July 21, 2010, to w h ic h Defendants responded on August 12, 2010.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Dockets.Justia.com

DISCUSSION 1. M o tio n for TRO and Preliminary Injunction A Rule 65 preliminary injunction may be granted if the moving party demonstrates th e following elements: (1) that the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied; (2) that the moving party will probably prevail on the merits; (3) that the b a la n c e of potential harm favors the moving party; and (4) that the public interest favors g ra n tin g relief. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., ­ U.S. ­, 129 S.Ct. 3 6 5 , 374 (2008); Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1987). In deciding w h e th e r to issue a preliminary injunction, the court "is not bound to decide doubtful and d if f ic u lt questions of law or disputed questions of fact." Internat'l. Molders' and Allied W o r k e r s ' Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547, 551 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Dymo In d u s trie s , Inc. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964)). "Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the movant's right to relief must be clear and unequivocal." Dominion Video Satellite v. Echostar Satellite C o r p ., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Stanley v. Univ. of Southern C a lifo rn ia , 13 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1994) (relief must be denied unless the facts and law c le a rly favor the moving party); Enterprise Int'l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera E c u a to r ia n a , 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985) (because a preliminary injunction is an e x tra o rd in a ry remedy, it should not to be granted routinely, but only when the plaintiff, by a clear showing, carries its burden of persuasion on each of the required elements).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

In her motion here, Plaintiff appears to seek termination of the Therapeutic C o m m u n ity Program at the South Boise Women's Correctional Center. (Dkt. 13-1 at 7.) Plaintiff argues that the public interest favors granting relief in this case. (Motion, Dkt. 1 3 at 5-6.) However, Plaintiff does not address the other three factors identified above, f o r establishing that a preliminary injunction is warranted. T h e content of Plaintiff's motion tracks the allegations in her Complaint (Dkt. 3) a n d First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 10). Although the Court, in its Initial Review Order (D k t. 14), determined that Plaintiff has stated colorable claims of First and Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t violations, such finding is insufficient to support a preliminary injunction. Notably absent in Plaintiff's motion, is a demonstration that Plaintiff would suffer irre p a ra b le injury if a preliminary injunction is not granted here. In fact, Plaintiff asserts th a t she is no longer in the Therapeutic Community Program at this time. (". . . I am in th is prison system, right next to the TC Program." Dkt. 13 at 4.) Because Plaintiff must s h o w all four elements in support of a motion for preliminary injunction, and having f a ile d to establish irreparable injury, the Court will deny the motion at this time. Plaintiff w ill be permitted to re-raise the motion after she files a Second Amended Complaint, if a n y. 2. M o tio n to Compel and for Enlargement of Time In her motion, Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendants to provide her w ith copies of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18 of the United States

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Code, the "Model Penal Codes for money crimes, fraud and conspiracy," and the Federal R u le s of Evidence. (Dkt. 36 at 8.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure address motions to compel disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. However, as noted by Defendants, P la in tif f here appears to be making an "access to courts" request for which the IDOC has e s ta b lis h e d procedures. (Standard Operating Procedure, Dkt. 37-1.) Plaintiff has not a s s e rte d that she has attempted and been denied a request following these IDOC p ro c e d u re s . There is no basis for the Court to grant Plaintiff's motion to compel, th e re f o re her request will be denied. It also appears, from Plaintiff's motion, that Plaintiff has misconstrued the Court's In itia l Review Order. Plaintiff indicates, in light of the Court's prior order, an intent to ra ise new claims using legal materials now sought from Defendants. The Ninth Circuit h a s expressed "that a pro se litigant bringing a civil rights suit must have an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome deficiencies . . .." Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 8 3 6 , 837 (9th Cir. 1965). The Court here clarifies that leave to amend was granted in o rd e r for Plaintiff to marshal more facts, and thus make more specific allegations to o v e rc o m e factual deficiencies in her existing claims. To this end, Plaintiff is directed to focus her attention on asserting more specific f a c tu a l allegations concerning her existing claims, rather than on developing new legal th e o rie s . Plaintiff's request for enlargement of time shall be granted; Plaintiff shall have u n til October 8, 2010 to file the second amended complaint. However, given the need for

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

forward movement in the case, and given that she has already been granted two e x te n s io n s, Plaintiff is warned that no further extensions shall be granted. ORDER I T IS ORDERED THAT: 1. P la in tif f 's Motion (Dkt. 13) for Order to Show Cause for Preliminary In ju n c tio n and Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED without prejudice. 2. 3. P la in tif f 's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 36) is DENIED. P la in tif f 's Request for Enlargement of Time (Dkt. 36) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until October 8, 2010 to file her second amended c o m p la in t. 4. N o further extensions of time to amend the complaint shall be allowed. D A T E D : September 9, 2010

Honorable Ronald E. Bush U . S. Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5