Jackson v. Patzkowski et al
Filing
58
ORDER denying 51 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)**6 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Kyntrel Jackson, Prisoner ID: 355949)
1
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Sep 11, 2018
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEAN F. M AVOY, CLERK
3
C
4
KYNTREL JACKSON,
No. 4:17-CV-05189-SMJ
5
Plaintiff,
6
7
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SHAWNA PATZKOWSKI and R.
ZARAGOZA,
8
Defendants.
9
10
Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Kyntrel Jackson’s
11
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 51. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary
12
injunction to “stop any farther [sic] harassment and violations concerning this civil
13
suit by the defendants in this matter.” Id. at 2. Having reviewed the pleadings and
14
the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and denies Plaintiff’s motion.
15
I.
BACKGROUND
16
The Court received Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint and application to proceed
17
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on November 11, 2017. ECF No. 1. On January 12, 2018,
18
the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application and directed the Clerk of Court to file
19
the Complaint. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth
20
Amendments, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 1
1
(“RLUIPA”). ECF No. 1. He requests that the Court order Defendants to deliver his
2
sacred writings religious book, which Defendants have refused to give him. Id. at
3
13.
4
By separate Order, the Court dismissed in part Plaintiff’s Complaint for
5
failure to state a claim and terminated certain individuals from the action. ECF No.
6
12 at 3–8. On the same day, the Court received Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
7
ECF No. 15. The Amended Complaint alleges the same claims against the same
8
defendants, but differs from the original in two respects: (1) it added a claim under
9
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) it added a defendant, Chaplain
10
Fred Ivey. Id. Plaintiff again seeks injunctive relief relating to his sacred writings
11
religious book.
12
On January 19, 2018, the Court again dismissed in part the Complaint for
13
failure to state a claim, including the added claim, and terminated certain
14
individuals accordingly. ECF No. 21 at 8–9. The remaining Defendants, Shawna
15
Patzkowski and R. Zaragoza, were directed to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint
16
regarding the censorship of his religious book under the First Amendment and
17
RLUIPA—the only surviving claims. Id. at 10. Defendants answered on March 16,
18
2018. ECF No. 37.
19
On August 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. ECF No. 51.
20
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 2
II.
1
LEGAL STANDARD
2
“Preliminary injunctions are an ‘extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
3
right.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Winter v.
4
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)). To obtain a preliminary
5
injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) [he] is likely to succeed on the
6
merits of [his] claim, (2) [he] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
7
preliminary relief, (3) the balance of hardships tips in [his] favor, and (4) a
8
preliminary injunction is in the public interest.” Int’l Franchise Ass’n v. City of
9
Seattle, 803 F.3d 389, 399 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).
10
Whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits is a threshold inquiry;
11
when a plaintiff fails to show the likelihood of success on the merits, a court need
12
not consider the remaining elements. Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740.
13
Additionally, courts face further restrictions when a civil action involves a
14
prisoner plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials with
15
respect to prison conditions:
16
17
18
Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further
than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary
relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.
The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public
safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the
preliminary relief. . . .
19
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
20
This statute “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 3
1
courts and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may
2
courts grant or approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the
3
constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000).
III.
4
DISCUSSION
5
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to stop Defendants from “opening
6
and tampering with [his] legal mail [relating to this case] and evidence against
7
them.” ECF No. 51 at 1. He asserts that “per law, policy, ethics, and privilege this
8
is illegal and should not be happening.” Id. Moreover, he argues that he is not
9
receiving legal documents concerning this case. Id. at 1–2.
10
Although Defendants responded, ECF No. 55, their brief paragraph response
11
points only to Plaintiff’s lack of evidence and failure to articulate what relief he
12
seeks. They also append the Washington State Department of Correction’s Policy
13
450.100, Mail for Prison Offenders. 1 Id. They assert that without any contrary
14
evidence, it is fair to assume the policy is being followed. Id.
Putting aside Plaintiff’s lack of evidence and inarticulate demands, which the
15
16
1
17
18
19
20
Pursuant to Directive Section III titled “Inspection,” employees are authorized to
inspect and read mail to prevent “sending/receiving contraband or other material
that threatens facility order or security, and/or criminal activity.” ECF No. 55-1 at
6. Moreover, under Section VII titled “Legal Mail,” “designated employees” must
open legal mail “in the offender’s presence.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff has failed to show
that the named Defendants were—or were not—such designated employees,
whether Defendants violated the Directive by not opening mail in Plaintiff’s
presence, and why the overall policy is unlawful in light of the prison’s penological
interests.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 4
1
construes liberally, Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623
2
(9th Cir. 1988), the insurmountable barrier for Plaintiff is that he seeks to enjoin
3
conduct unrelated to his underlying claims.
4
A preliminary injunction is appropriate to grant relief of the “same character
5
as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States,
6
325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court may not issue an injunction in “a matter lying
7
wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Id. In other words, a plaintiff must show a
8
relationship, or nexus, between the injury claimed in his motion for injunctive relief
9
and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. Pac. Radiation Oncology,
10
LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2015).
11
Here, the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s motion have no nexus to the factual
12
allegations underlying his First Amendment and RLUIPA claims. Plaintiff makes
13
no showing that Defendants’ refusal to deliver his sacred writings religious book is
14
related to their “opening and tampering” of his mail.
15
Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff’s motion.
IV.
16
CONCLUSION
17
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
18
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
19
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 51, is
20
DENIED.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 5
1
2
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to counsel and to Plaintiff.
DATED this 11th day of September 2018.
___________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?