Hall v. Montana State Prison et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 7 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 4/21/2014. Mailed to Hall. (TAG, )

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE QISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION

APR 21 2014
Clerk. u.s District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula

CV 14-00011-H-DLC-RKS

STACY HALL,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.
MONTANA STATE PRISON, LEROY
KIRKEGARD, MYRON BEESON, ROSS
SWANSON, TOM WOODS, CANDYCE
NEUBAUER, BILLIE REICH, ROXANNE
WIGERT, DAN HESS, MICHELE STEYH,
ALVIN FODE, SHEILA HASTINGS, JOHN
DOE, JANES/JANE DOE, TRISDAN KOHUT,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Stacy Hall has filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction seeking an order prohibiting Defendants from
interfering with his ability to access the courts and litigate his claims. (Doc. 7.)
Mr. Hall filed this matter on March 3, 2014. He alleges that on March 5,2014 he
was moved to general population from a locked housing unit (maximum security
isolation) where he had been held since May 2012. (Declaration-Doc. 7-2 at 3.)
He was approved for a custody reduction on March 11, 2014 but on March 21,
2014 he was told by Unit Manager Paul Lucier that due to his lawsuit he had to
"resign" his classification. On March 21, 2014, Mr. Hall's cell was searched. On
1

----------------

March 25,2014, he was informed that Defendants had changed their minds and
increased his custody placement. On March 28, 2014, his cell was again searched
and his legal documents were searched, reviewed by correctional staff, and some
documents confiscated. On March 29,2014, Mr. Hall was separated from other
inmates in the yard and was told it was because he was suspected of gathering
information from other inmates. (Declaration-Doc. 7-2 at 5-7.)
There are several problems with Mr. Hall's motion. First, he has not
complied with the notice provisions of Rule 65 <lfthe Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or that party's attorney if: (1) it clearly appears from
specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse
party or the party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant's
attorney (plaintiff himself in this case, as he proceeds pro se) certifies in writing
the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting
the claim that notice should not be required. Fed.R.Civ.P.65(b). Mr. Hall has not
satisfied either requirement.
In addition, as a general rule courts are unable to issue orders against

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v.
2

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969); Zepeda v. United States
Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court may
issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject
matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of
persons not before the court."). Here, the Court has not obtained personal
jurisdiction over any defendant since the case is in the prescreening process
mandated by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A and therefore has not yet been served.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) is denied.
DATED this

2.1 ~iday of April, 20

4

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3