Clary v. Michaels et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full; denying 22 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 4/28/2020. Transmitted electronically to prison for delivery to Plaintiff. (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
CHARLES CLARY,

CV-19-66-H-BMM-JTJ

Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
REGINALD MICHAELS, LYNN
GUYER, GALE BUTLER, SCOTT
GRINDER, DENNIS KEELO,
TERRIS HOSACK, CHRIS ZACHER,
BRUNO KRAUS, and BILL
WEDDINGTON,
Defendants.

United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on April 6, 2020. (Doc. 24). Neither party filed
objections. The Court reviews for clear error any portion to which no party
specifically objected. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.,
656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

1

Plaintiff Charles Clary has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
(Doc. 22). Clary seeks a temporary restraining order to enjoin the defendants from
defying Governor Bullock’s stay-at-home order. (Doc. 22). The Magistrate Judge
recommended that Clary’s motion be denied because it seeks relief against nonparties, it seeks relief without a sufficient nexus to the claims in Clary’s complaint,
and it does not meet the standard for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 24). The
Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in concluding that Clary’s motion should be
denied.
Clary’s motion seeks an injunction against defendants and against “M.S.P.,”
“Montana Correctional Enterprises,” and various other subsidiaries. (See Doc. 22).
Clary’s motion does not name these entities in his complaint and the Court has no
power to enjoin their activities. Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753
F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“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.”).
The Magistrate Judge also based his recommendation on the fact that Clary’s
complaint, which stems from an allegation that prison officials violated the Prison
Rape Elimination Act, is unrelated to his instant motion, which requests relief
based on the COVID-19 pandemic. (Compare Doc. 1 with Doc. 22). There is not
a sufficient nexus between Clary’s complaint and the requested injunctive relief.
2

Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636
(9th Cir. 2015).
Finally, the Magistrate Judge also concluded that Clary had not met the
standard for a preliminary injunction. The Court agrees. A plaintiff seeking a
preliminary injunction must establish that his claim is likely to succeed on the
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the
public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Clary
presented no evidence to demonstrate any of the above elements.
This Court finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Clary’s motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 24) are
ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Clary’s motion for a temporary
restraining order (Doc. 22) is DENIED.
DATED this 28th day of April, 2020.

3