Martin v. Dewsnup et al

Filing 133

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction 118 is DENIED. See 6-page order attached. Signed on 6/20/2013 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Copy of order mailed to plaintiff. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
6:11-cv-06420-HU

SHAWN MICHAEL MARTIN,

ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

DR. DEWSNUP, et al.,
Defendants.
HERNANDEZ, Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at Snake River Correctional Institution
(SRCI), brings this civil rights action alleging that he was denied
adequate medical treatment,
dry

clothing,

system.

and

subjected to excessive force,

retaliated

See Amended Complaint

against
(#29)

&

plaintiff's amended complaint in part).
is plaintiff's
(#118).

fourth motion for

1 - ORDER

using

Order

the

(#33)

grievance
(dismissing

Currently before the court

temporary restraining order

Because plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements for

a temporary restraining order as
65 (b) ( 1) ,

a

for

denied

set

forth

in Fed.

R.

Ci v.

P.

the motion was treated as a request for a preliminary

injunction,

and defendants were given the opportunity to file an

opposition.

For the reasons set forth below 1 the motion is denied.
STANDARDS

A preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy for preserving
rights and preventing irreparable injury until a final judgment can
be issued in the case.
F.3d 1091,
Software,
party

1094
Inc.,

moving

U.S.

(9th Cir.

Philips Corp. v.

2010);

739 F.2d 1415,
for

a

KBC Bank N.V.,

Sierra On-Line,
1422-23

preliminary

(9th Cir.

injunction

Inc.

v.

590

Phoenix

1984). "Thus,

must

a

necessarily

establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's
motion and the

conduct

asserted in the

complaint."

Devose v.

Herrington, 42 F. 3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); Ashker v. Brown, 2013
WL 1701702 *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013); see also De Beers Consol.
Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945).
In order to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief,

a

party must demonstrate "that he 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 tip in his favor,
and that an injunction

lS

in the public

interest."

Winter v.

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans,
Inc.

v.

Selecky,

586 F.3d 1109,

1127

(9th Cir.

2009).

Mandatory

injunctive relief, which extends well beyond maintaining the status
quo,

is particularly disfavored and should be denied unless the

facts and law clearly favor the moving party.
2 - ORDER

Leigh v. Salazar,

677 F. 3d 892,

902

(9th Cir. 2012); Martin v.

Int' 1 Olympic Cornrn.,

7 4 0 F . 2 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 5 ( 9th Ci r . 19 8 4 )
"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 parties
not before the court."
7 19 ,

727

Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d

( 9th Ci r . 19 8 5 ) .

conditions

of

In cases filed by prisoners involving

confinement,

narrowly drawn,

a

preliminary

injunction

"must

be

extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least
intrusive means

necessary

to

correct

the

harm."

18

u.s.c.

§

3626 (a) (2)
DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction which
(1) prevents defendants from physically harming him;

(2) prevents

defendants from seizing his legal property and materials needed to
complete

motions

and

legal

letters;

and

(3)

restrains

all

"defendants, their successors in office, agents and employees and
all other persons

acting in concert with them, "

plaintiff anywhere within SRCI without

a

from escorting

video camera present.

Pltff's Motion for TRO (#118) and Declaration (#120).
Plaintiff's

request

for

injunctive

relief

is

based

conduct that is not the subject of the instant proceeding.

upon

Most of

the alleged conduct which forms the basis of plaintiff's motion
3 - ORDER

was carried out by non-defendants in 2013.

Hence, the allegations

do not support a finding that plaintiff is likely to prevail on any
of the claims set forth in his amended complaint.
F.3d at 471; Ashker, 2013 WL 1701702 *2.
notes

that

the

excessive

force

See Devose, 42

In this regard, the court

claim set

forth

in plaintiff's

amended complaint is premised upon alleged assaults which occurred
in 2010.

Plaintiff has made

succeed on that claim.

no

showing that

named

injunctive

as

a

defendant

relief

is

is

likely to

Although plaintiff now alleges that he was

assaulted by Sergeant Brown on April 16, 2013,
not

he

not

ln

Sergeant Brown is

proceeding. 1

this

warranted in

response

Accordingly,
to

the

alleged

conduct of Sergeant Brown.
Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief prohibiting defendants
from seizing his legal materials.

In support of this request,

plaintiff alleges that his legal materials were initially seized by
Sergeant Benitez upon plaintiff's transfer on February 20,
from

Two

Rivers

Correctional

Institution

to

SRCI.

2013,

Plaintiff

alleges that Sergeant Benitez explained to plaintiff that he was
"over [his] limit of what [he is] allowed to have," that plaintiff
must go through and select the materials he was being allowed to
take,

and
1

that

he

could

obtain

the

rest

later.

Plaintiff's

Plaintiff also identifies Correctional Officer Payne as
being present during the 2013 assault, but plaintiff
affirmatively alleges that he is ''unsure if Payne assaulted" him.

4 - ORDER

Plaintiff complains that he was not able to

Declaration at 2.

obtain all of his materials until April 3, 2013, and that "some" of
the materials were missing.

Additionally, plaintiff complains that

the materials were again seized on April 16, 2013, and returned on
April 20, 2013.
Plaintiff's

allegations

regarding

his

legal materials

unrelated to any of the claims in his amended complaint.
with

the

exception

of

Judy

Gilmore,

the

alleged

are

Further,

seizure

of

plaintiff's legal materials was by correctional officials who are
not named as defendants.
have

advised plaintiff to

Defendant Gilmore is simply alleged to
contact

obtain his legal materials.

the

IMU

Property Officer to

Additionally, in light of plaintiff's

allegations that the bulk of his legal materials has been returned,
plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood that he will suffer
irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief.
Finally, it is worthy of note that the Oregon Administrative
Rules place limitations upon the quantity of legal materials a
prisoner may possess in his cell.

OAR 291-117-0100.

Plaintiff has

made no showing that correctional officials violated this rule, or
that the rule is unconstitutional.
enforcement

of

an

administrative

security and fire prevention.
relief is not warranted.

Ill
5 - ORDER

The public interest
rule

which

furthers

favors
prison

For all of these reasons, injunctive

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

plaintiff's motion for a temporary

restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (#118) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

~

day of June, 2013.

/Marc~A:

Hernandez
United States District Judge

6 - ORDER