Fletcher v. Dreesen et al

Filing 212

ORDER. It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's 194 Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief is denied. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's 206 motion for extension of time to file reply is granted. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/6/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

KATHERINE DEE FLETCHER,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 2:22-cv-01777-MMD-NJK
ORDER

DREESEN, et al.,
Defendants.

10
I.

11

SUMMARY

12

Pro se Plaintiff Katherine Dee Fletcher, who is incarcerated in the custody of the

13

Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) at Florence McClure Women’s Correctional

14

Center (“FMWCC”), asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that occurred

15

between September 12, 2022, and October 14, 2022, when she was placed in an isolation

16

cell for 33 days. (ECF No. 116.). Following screening of Plaintiff’s second amended

17

complaint (“SAC”), the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on four claims arising out of

18

this period of isolation: (1) A First Amendment free exercise of religion claim based on

19

allegations she was placed in isolation after she declined a medical injection based on

20

her religion—Plaintiff is a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses (claim 1); (2) an Eighth

21

Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim based on allegations Plaintiff was subjected

22

to black mold and slippery floors (claim 2); (3) a denial of access to the courts claim based

23

on Plaintiff’s inability to communicate with her attorney for her direct criminal appeal (claim

24

4); and (4) a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim based on exposure

25

to black mold exacerbating Plaintiff’s preexisting health issues and causing other health

26

issues (claim 5). (ECF No. 127.)

27

///

28

///

1

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief. (ECF No. 194

2

(“Motion”). 1) Because Plaintiff asks for general reliefs that have no connections to her

3

claims, the Court will deny the Motion.

4

II.

DISCUSSION

5

Plaintiff’s Motion is difficult to understand. What is clear to the Court is Plaintiff

6

does not address any claims or relief arising out of her months-long isolation—the claims

7

she has been permitted to pursue in this case. Instead, Plaintiff’s Motion asserts that “[t]he

8

case stems from criminal misconduct retaliations aiding a [Childe] sexual assault

9

syndicate.” (ECF No. 194 at 1.) Plaintiff goes on to assert alleged criminal conduct

10

involving “Toddler Sex Assault Syndicalism” (id. at 2) and “Childe Rape Syndicate” (id. at

11

3-5), and states she is trying to “report a Childe Rape Syndicate to the US Marshal” (id.

12

at 6), referring to “My Most Precious Daughter’s Case For Her Best Interests” (id. at 3).

13

Plaintiff makes generally allegations of retaliation, alleged conduct of the “OAG” (id. at 1-

14

2), and issues with processing and handling of her legal mail by the “mailroom” (id. at 4).

15

As best the Court can discern, the Motion and reply brief (ECF No. 209) list general

16

grievances unrelated to the claims proceeding in this case.

17

Plaintiff also fails to identify what preliminary injunctive relief she is requesting. “‘An

18

injunction is a matter of equitable discretion’ and is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may

19

only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’” Earth

20

Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.

21

Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22, 32 (2008)). To qualify for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must

22

demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm;

23

(3) that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff; and (4) that the injunction is in the

24

public interest. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Here, Plaintiff has not shown how the

25

allegations in her Motion are related to her claims, let alone satisfied any of these factors

26

to obtain preliminary relief.

27
28

1Defendants responded (ECF No. 203) and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 209). The

Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for a brief extension of time to file her reply (ECF No. 206).
2

1

Moreover, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, preliminary injunctive relief must

2

be “narrowly drawn,” must “extend no further than necessary to correct the harm,” and

3

must be “the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. §

4

3626(a)(2).
In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is entitled to preliminary injunctive

5
6

relief.

7

III.

8
9
10
11
12

CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF

No. 194) is denied.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file reply (ECF
No. 206) is granted.
DATED THIS 6th Day of March 2025.

13
14
15
16

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

___