Harris v. Gittere et al

Filing 59

ORDERED Plaintiff's objections to Judge Denney's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 41 ) are OVERRULED. It is further ordered that Judge Denney's Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Plaintiff's motions for a p reliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (ECF No. 38 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 30 , 31 ) are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 9/24/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 9/24/2024 for punctuation (DRM).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

BARRY HARRIS,

6
7

Plaintiff,

v.

8

Case No. 3:22-cv-00042-ART-CSD
ORDER

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Pro se Plaintiff Barry Harris brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendants William Gittere, Amber Bodenheimer 1, and William Reubart
for their allegedly unconstitutional behavior. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion
for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (ECF Nos. 30, 31.) 2
Defendants filed responsive briefs (ECF Nos. 32, 33), and Plaintiff filed a reply.
(ECF No. 35.)
United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney has issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 38) recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff filed an objection to that R&R. (ECF No. 41.) For the reasons identified
below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the R&R in full, and
denies Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order (ECF Nos. 30, 31.)
I.

24

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) and

25
26
27
28

Background

Plaintiff’s claims were originally filed against Correctional Officer “Bowdimer.”
Subsequent filings by Defendants as well as the docket indicate that the true
name of this Defendant is Amber Bodenheimer.
2
These documents are identical but docketed separately due to the differing relief
sought.
1

1

1

allowed him to proceed with his Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment,

2

and retaliation claims against Defendants Gittere, Reubart, and Bodenheimer.

3

(ECF No. 10.) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction

4

and temporary restraining order. (ECF Nos. 30, 31). Plaintiff moves for an order

5

requiring Defendants to provide him with one hour, three days a week, to review

6

Defendant’s initial disclosures, evidence, and documents that he is not permitted

7

to have in his cell, and requiring that he be provided with adequate space, time,

8

and Lexis Nexis capabilities to do research and take notes in his defense. (ECF

9

Nos 30, 31.)

10

II.

Legal Standard

11

A. Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order

12

In order for a court to have the power to grant a preliminary injunction or

13

temporary restraining order, “there must be a relationship between the injury

14

claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the

15

underlying complaint.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center,

16

810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). “The relationship between the preliminary

17

injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the

18

preliminary injunction would grant ‘relief of the same character as that which

19

may be granted finally.’” Id. (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325

20

U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).

21

A. Review of Reports and Recommendations

22

Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a court “may accept, reject, or modify,

23

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate

24

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's

25

report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de

26

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which

27

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any

28

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v.

2

1

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
III.

2

Discussion

3

Plaintiff objects to Judge Denney’s R&R on the basis that (1) he did not

4

consent to a magistrate judge, and (2) that the magistrate judge refused to

5

address his equal protection claim. (ECF No. 41 at 1-2.)
A. Consent to Magistrate Judge

6
7

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a federal district judge may designate a

8

magistrate judge to submit to the court proposed findings of fact and

9

recommendations for disposition of a motion by an individual in prison

10

challenging the conditions of their confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Any

11

party may then serve and file written objections to the magistrate judge’s

12

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge may then accept, reject,

13

or modify the recommendations of the magistrate judge. Id. The district judge

14

thus decides whether to grant case-ending (dispositive) motions and would

15

preside over any trial. This process does not require consent of the parties. This

16

action was referred to Judge Denney pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thus,

17

Plaintiff’s objection on the basis that he did not consent to a magistrate judge is

18

overruled.
B. Equal Protection Claim

19
20

In considering a motion for injunctive relief, Judge Denney was required to

21

consider whether Plaintiff met the standard for a preliminary injunction or

22

temporary restraining order. Granting a preliminary injunction or temporary

23

restraining order requires that there be a nexus between the injury claimed in

24

the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying

25

complaint. See Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810

26

F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States,

27

325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).

28

//

3

1

Magistrate Judge Denney’s order considered whether there was a

2

relationship between the injury Plaintiff claimed in his underlying complaint

3

(here, his Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, and

4

retaliation claims), and the relief requested in his motion for a preliminary

5

injunction or temporary restraining order (time to review Defendant’s initial

6

disclosures, evidence, and documents not permitted to have in Plaintiff’s cell, and

7

adequate space, time, and Lexis Nexis capabilities to do research and take notes

8

in his defense). (ECF Nos. 30, 31.) In doing so, Magistrate Judge Denney’s order

9

found that “Plaintiff’s ability to access and review legal documents related to an

10

ongoing criminal case certainly has no nexus to the Eighth Amendment mental

11

health, equal protection, and retaliation claims proceeding in this action.” (ECF

12

No. 38 at 3.) Accordingly, Judge Denney did not fail to address Plaintiff’s equal

13

protection claim in his recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.

14

Additionally, upon review of Judge Denney’s analysis, the Court agrees

15

with the conclusion that there is no nexus between the injury claimed and the

16

relief requested. See Picozzi v. Nevada, No. 2:22-CV-01011-ART-EJY, 2024 WL

17

3570861, at *3 (D. Nev. July 26, 2024) (finding no nexus between plaintiff’s

18

claims relating to medical care and the relief requested related to retaliation);

19

King v. Calderin, No. 221-CV-01452-CDS-BNW, 2023 WL 375986, at *2 (D. Nev.

20

Jan. 24, 2023) (finding no nexus between plaintiff’s claims under the First

21

Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA, and his request for relief

22

related to retaliation, assault, and battery).

23
24

The Court thus adopts Judge Denney’s report and recommendation as to
this motion.

25

If Plaintiff believes he faces new violations of his rights, he must grieve his

26

concerns, exhaust his administrative rights, and may then initiate a new action.

27

As noted in Judge Denney’s R&R, these are also matters that may be raised

28

through a discovery motion after engaging in a meet and confer, pursuant to the

4

1

requirements set forth in Local Rules 26-6 and LR IA 1-3(f). The Court generally

2

will not interfere with matters of prison administration, including the review of

3

such matters, unless the inmate specifically demonstrates in connection with a

4

discovery motion that he is not being given an adequate time to review relevant

5

materials.

6

IV.

7
8

Conclusion
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Denney’s Report

and Recommendation (ECF No. 41) are OVERRULED.

9

It is further ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation

10

recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction and

11

temporary restraining order (ECF No. 38) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

12
13

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 30, 31) are DENIED.

14
15

Dated this 24th day of September, 2024.

16
17
18
19

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5