Sutton v. Warner

Filing 34

ORDER Denying 29 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or a Temporary Restraining Order (cc: Plaintiff Jason Lee Sutton via first class mail). Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (PL, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

No.

JASON LEE SUTTON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

4:14-CV-5055-EFS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
BERNARD WARNER, ET AL.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

Before

the

Court,

without

oral

argument,

is

Plaintiff

Jason

14

Sutton's

15

Restraining Order.

16

that

17

Management

18

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff lacks standing to

19

seek injunctive relief and that he has not met the requirements for

20

obtaining a preliminary injunction.

21

pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and

22

denies the motion.

Motion

Defendants

23

Unit

for

a

Preliminary

ECF No. 29.

turn
(IMU)

off
at

I.

Injunction

or

a

Temporary

Plaintiff asks the Court to order

the

in-cell

the

lights

Washington

ECF No. 30.

in

State

the

Intensive

Penitentiary.

Having reviewed the

BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiff, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

25

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants, Washington

26

Department of Corrections officers, violated the Eighth Amendment.

ORDER - 1

1

Complaint, ECF No. 11-1 at 19.

2

2013, following an altercation with another prisoner, he was placed on

3

administrative

segregation

4

Penitentiary.

Complaint, ECF No. 11-1 at 3.

5

Plaintiff was subjected to constant illumination, and, as a result, he

6

alleges

7

disorientation,

8

psychological symptoms.

9

December

that

17,

he

in

the

experienced

confusion,

2014

Plaintiff alleges that, on October 23,

eye

at

sleeping
strain,

Id. at

telephonic

IMU

10

released from the IMU in August 2014.

11

ECF

12

Washington

and

State

While in the IMU,

problems,

4, 14.

scheduling

the

other

migraines,

physical

and

Plaintiff stated at

the

conference

was

that

he

November 13, 2013 to August 2014).

No.

33

at

¶ 35

(stating

II.

13

that

See also Decl. of Jason Sutton,
Plaintiff

was

in

the

IMU

from

LEGAL STANDARD1

14

“A preliminary injunction is not a preliminary adjudication on

15

the merits: it is an equitable device for preserving the status quo

16

and

17

Textile Unlimited v. A..BMH and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir.

18

2001).

19

remedy,” that “is never awarded as of right.”

20

U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (internal quotations omitted).

preventing

22

irreparable

loss

of

rights

before

judgment."

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic

A plaintiff
that he is
likely to
preliminary

21

the

seeking
likely
suffer
relief,

Munaf v. Geren, 553
Instead,

a preliminary injunction must establish
to succeed on the merits, that he is
irreparable harm in the absence of
that the balance of equities tips in

23

Given that Plaintiff requests permanent relief and the fact
that both parties have received notice and been heard on this
matter, the Court analyzes Plaintiff’s motion as if it seeks a
preliminary injunction and not a temporary restraining order.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
1

24
25
26

ORDER - 2

his favor,
interest.

1

and

that

an

injunction

is

in

the

public

2
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
3
Where, as here, a mandatory injunction is sought—that is, an
4
injunction which requires a party to take an affirmative action and
5
alter the status quo—courts must be “extremely cautious.”

Martin v.

6
Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984).

A mandatory

7
injunction “should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly
8
favor the moving party” or “unless extreme or very serious damage will
9
result.”

Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114–15 (9th Cir.

10
1979) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
11
In

civil

actions

regarding

prison

conditions,

the

Prison

12
Litigation Reform Act requires that preliminary injunctive relief “be
13
narrowly

drawn,

extend

no

further

than

necessary

to

correct

the

14
harm . . . and be the least intrusive means necessary.”

18 U.S.C.

15
§ 3626(a)(1)(C)(2).

Additionally, “[t]he court shall give substantial

16
weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a
17
criminal justice system.”

Id.

18
III. ANALYSIS
19
A.

Standing

20
Plaintiff must have standing to obtain a preliminary injunction.
21
See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2012).

To have

22
standing, he must show that he suffers an injury that is concrete,
23
particularized,

actual

or

imminent,

and

not

conjectural

or

24
hypothetical.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560

25
(1992).
26

ORDER - 3

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered and continues to

1

suffer various physical injuries as a result of being exposed to

2

constant illumination while housed in the IMU.

3

injury is not ongoing because he is no longer housed in the IMU and

4

subjected to constant illumination.

5

must establish “a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged

6

in a similar way.”

7

(1983).

Therefore, to have standing, he

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111

This he has not done.2

Plaintiff repeatedly argues that he may be placed back in the

8
9

However, Plaintiff’s

IMU.

Decl. of Jason Sutton, ECF No. 29 at 1 (“I may once again be

10

transferred

11

foreseeable.”); Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or

12

Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 29 at 4 (“[A]t any time or at any

13

moment, Mr. Sutton can possibly be restrained once again, and then

14

housed (once again), in Segregation/Isolation.”); id. at 5 (“It is

15

expected that Plaintiff will end up back in the Segregation Unit(s) at

16

any moment.”); see also Decl. of Jason Sutton, ECF No. 33 passim.

17

However, Plaintiff’s argument fails because he does not provide any

18

evidence to support it.

19

983, 990 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming grant of summary judgment to

20

defendants “because the record shows that [the plaintiff] has been

21

released from the IMU and there is no evidence that he is likely to

22

again be subject to the challenged conditions”).

23

in

24

prisoner.

25

2 Because Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was denied, see ECF No.
31, the Court does not consider Plaintiff’s submission of affidavits from
other prisoners detailing their injuries.
Injury to another person cannot
establish standing for Mr. Sutton, who is the only plaintiff in this case.

26

the

IMU

ORDER - 4

to

said

before

Unit(s)

[the

IMU]

in

the

future.

This

is

See Brown v. Or. Dept. of Corr., 751 F.3d

filing

ECF No. 7, at 4.

this

suit

because

Plaintiff was placed
he

assaulted

another

Although it is certainly possible that

1

Plaintiff may again be placed in the IMU for this or another reason,

2

there is

3

Indeed, given Plaintiff’s experience in the IMU, it seems likely that

4

Plaintiff will avoid conduct that may result in him being returned to

5

the IMU.

6

The

an equal or even greater possibility

Court

finds

that

Plaintiff

has

not

that he

will not.

established

that

he

7

suffers an imminent injury, as opposed to a hypothetical one.

8

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.

9

illumination Plaintiff was subjected to will be determined on the

10

merits in the present suit for damages, so Plaintiff has an adequate

11

remedy at law for the past injury he suffered.

12

111.

13

injunction.

14

B.

Plaintiff

does

See

As in Lyons, the legality of the constant

not

have

standing

See Lyons, 461 U.S. at
to

seek

a

preliminary

Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
Even if Plaintiff had standing to seek a preliminary injunction,

15
16

he

would

17

requirements.

See

18

requirements).

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to

19

suffer irreparable harm unless a preliminary injunction is issued.

20

discussed above, Plaintiff has not shown that he will once again be

21

placed in the IMU, and his statements that he may be placed there are

22

unsupported.

23

continuing

24

illumination, see ECF No. 29 at 4, do not establish a likelihood of

25

irreparable harm because even if the Court were to order that constant

26

ORDER - 5

not

be

entitled
Winter,

Additionally,
physical

to
555

one

because

U.S.

Plaintiff’s

ailments

at

he
20

has

(setting

allegations

resulting

not

from

met

the

forth

the

detailing
past

As

his

constant

1

illumination in the IMU cease, Plaintiff would continue to suffer the

2

alleged physical effects.

3

C.

Balance of Equities and Public Interest
Plaintiff

4

also

fails

to

demonstrate

that

a

preliminary

5

injunction would be in the public interest or that the balance of

6

equities is in his favor.

7

him is greater than the harm to Defendants.

8

argues that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest because

9

it would prevent prisoners subjected to constant illumination from

10

potentially taking out their anger at the practice on prison officials

11

while

12

released.

13

the IMU serves an important security interest and protects staff and

14

inmates.

15

2 (explaining security and safety reasons for constant illumination in

16

the

17

interest in giving state correctional officials the discretion to

18

manage correctional facilities.”

they

IMU).

are
Id.

confined

Plaintiff argues that the threat of harm to

or

on

innocent

ECF No. 29 at 5.

citizens

after

He also

they

are

Defendants respond that the constant illumination in

ECF No. 30 at 11; see also Decl. of Juan Palomo, ECF No. 30-

Defendants

also

argue

that

“the

public

has

a

strong

ECF No. 30 at 11.

19

The Court finds that the security and safety of prison officials

20

and inmates housed in the IMU are important interests that could be

21

harmed by a preliminary injunction requiring that the lights be turned

22

off.

23

about harm that may be inflicted by prisoners angry about the practice

24

of constant illumination.

25

Plaintiff that could be caused by constant illumination if he were to

26

be returned to the IMU but, for the reasons discussed above, finds

The Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s conjectural argument

ORDER - 6

The Court understands the potential harm to

1

that this hypothetical scenario does not tip the balance of equities

2

in Plaintiff’s favor or outweigh the public interest in prison safety

3

and security.

4

is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.

5

D.

For this reason as well as those given above, Plaintiff

Likelihood of Success on the Merits
As Plaintiff suggests, ECF No. 29 at 2–3, the Court is familiar

6
7

with

the

Ninth

8

However,

9

standing and does not fulfill the other requirements to obtain a

10

preliminary injunction, the Court finds that the merits of this case

11

are more properly analyzed at summary judgment with a full record or

12

at trial than at the preliminary injunction stage.

given

Circuit
the

case

Court’s

IV.

13

law

regarding

findings

above

constant
that

illumination.

Plaintiff

lacks

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff does not have standing to obtain

14
15

a

16

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for issuance of a preliminary

17

injunction.

18

a Preliminary Injunction or a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 29,

19

is DENIED.

20
21
22

preliminary

injunction

and

that

even

if

he

did

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to all counsel and Plaintiff.
DATED this

7th

day of April 2015.

23
s/Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2014\5055.deny.mot.pi.lc2.docx

ORDER - 7

standing,

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiff’s Motion for

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

have