Voth v. Mills

Filing 39

ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief 19 , Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 20 , Motion for Declaratory Judgment 26 , Second Supplemental Motion for Injunctive Relief 33 , Motion for Preliminary Injunction 34 , and Motion for Reconsideration 38 are DENIED. Defendant's Motion to Compel 30 is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 09/11/09 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (pvh)

FILED'09 SEP 111 O:25USDC-QRP

I N THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON FRANK E . VOTH, Plaintiff, v. DON M I L L S , Defendant. HAGGERTY, D i s t r i c t J u d g e . This prisoner c i v i l r i g h t s case comes before the court on p l a i n t i f f ' s Motion for Injunctive Relief [19], Motion for Leave to F i l e Amended Complaint [20], Motion f o r Declaratory Judgment [26], Second Supplemental Motion for Injunctive Relief [33], Motion for Preliminary Injunction [34], and Motion for Reconsideration [38]. Also before the court i s defendant's Motion to Compel [30].
I. Requests for Injunctive Relief.

CV. 0 9 - 4 2 3 - H A ORDER

On A p r i l 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e c o u r t d e n i e d p l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t M o t i o n for Temporary Restraining Order. On May 18, 2009, plaintiff "The

appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 1 - ORDER

filing

of

a

notice

of

appeal

is

an

event

of

jurisdictional

significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of i t s control over those aspects of the case involved Co., in 459 the appeal. 56,
II

Griggs v. (1982) (per

Provident curiam).

Consumer Because

Discount

u.s.

58

p l a i n t i f f ' s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order i s currently the subj ect of an appeal, plaintiff's Declaratory Motion Judgment the court lacks j u r i s d i c t i o n to rule on [19], Motion Motion for for

for

Injunctive Second

Relief

[26],

Supplemental

Injunctive Relief [33], and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [34], a l l of which seek immediate r e l i e f . denied without prejudice.
II. M o t i o n t o Amend [ 2 0 ] .

Accordingly, these Motions are

P l a i n t i f f also moves to f i l e an amended complaint in t h i s case. Defendant objects to p l a i n t i f f ' s proposed amended complaint

because p l a i n t i f f seeks to add claims which he has not presented for administrative review, thereby leaving them unexhausted. The P r i s o n L i t i g a t i o n Reform Act ("PLRA") o f 1995 amended 42 U.S.C.
§

1997e to provide that "[n]o action shall be brought with . by a prisoner confined in any facility until
II

respect to prison conditions. jail, prison, or other

correctional

such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
§

42 U . S . C .

1997e (a) .

A p r i s o n e r d o e s n o t s a t i s f y t h e PLRA' s e x h a u s t i o n

requirement by merely demonstrating that administrative remedies

2 - ORDER

are n o (2006) .

longer available. Instead, he must

Woodford v.

Ngo,

548 his

u.s.

81,

90-91

properly exhaust

administrative

remedies prior to filing a suit challenging his prison conditions.
Id at 85.

The exhaustion requirement i s mandatory, even when the seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings.

prisoner

Porter v. Nussle, 534

u.s.

516, 524 (2002).

In h i s proposed Amended Complaint, p l a i n t i f f attempts t o bring claims pertaining to his incarceration at the Snake River

Correctional Institution, a confinement which did not occur until after the filing of this lawsuit. As a r e s u l t , p l a i n t i f f could not

have exhausted his administrative remedies for these claims prior to filing this action, leaving his administrative remedies

unexhausted.

I t i s therefore f u t i l e to allow amendment of the

Complaint. See Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9 th C i r . 1999) ( f u t i l i t y of amendment i s a key f a c t o r when

ruling on a motion to amend).
III. Motion for Reconsideration [38].

P l a i n t i f f asks the court to reconsider i t s prior ruling on his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. That issue is currently

before the Court of Appeals, and t h i s court has no jurisdiction to reconsider its decision.
IV.

Accordingly, the Motion i s denied.

Motion to Compel [30].

Finally, defendant moves for an order compelling p l a i n t i f f t o sign a release which authorizes defendant to obtain and disclose 3 - ORDER

plaintiff's h e a l t h c a r e r e c o r d s a s n e c e s s a r y i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . Defendant's Motion i s granted. to plaintiff's medical The reach of t h i s Order i s limited as they are relevant to this

records

proceeding, and i s also limited in duration to the pendency of this case.
CONCLUSION

P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion for Leave to File [26], Amended

Inj uncti ve Relief [20], Motion

[19], for

Motion for Declaratory

Complaint

Judgment [33],

Second Supplemental Motion for for Preliminary Inj unction [34],

Injunctive Relief and Motion for

Motion

R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n [ 3 8 ] a r e DENIED. D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n t o C o m p e l [ 3 0 ] i s GRANTED. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s

-il--

day of September, 2009.

~A~United States District Judge

4 - ORDER