Denton v. Pastor et al

Filing 75

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND DECLINING TO ADOPT IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 61 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) Paper copy sent to plaintiff @ Tacoma address . Modified on 2/16/2017 (JL).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 MICHAEL DENTON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 CASE NO. 16-5314 RJB-DWC ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. 13 SHERIFF PASTOR, LT. CHARLA JAMES-HUTCHISON, SGT. CARUSO, CAPTAIN MARVIN SPENCER, 14 15 Defendants. 16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 17 18 Judge David W. Christel. Dkt. 61. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, 19 objections, other pleadings filed related to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining 20 file. 21 On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 Dkt. 1. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that while he was a pre-trial detainee in the 23 Pierce County, Washington jail, Defendants Lieutenant Charla James Hutchinson and Sergeant 24 Caruso violated his due process rights when they revoked his good time credits and Defendants ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1 1 Sheriff Pastor and Captain Spencer violated his first amendment rights when they created a 2 policy which denied Plaintiff (and all prisoners in administrative segregation) receipt of 3 incoming publications, including subscription magazines and books. Dkt. 25. 4 Now pending is the Report and Recommendation, which recommends the Court deny 5 Plaintiff’s January 5, 2017 motion for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. 61. Plaintiff’s motion 6 for a temporary restraining order seeks an order stopping the Defendants from: (1) denying him 7 access to his “legal box,” (2) denying him the ability to send and receive mail, (3) denying him 8 access to legal materials, (4) harassing, assaulting, and retaliating against him, and (5) housing 9 him in a strip cell in administrative segregation. Dkt. 52. 10 The Report and Recommendation points out that the relief Plaintiff seeks in his January 11 5, 2017 motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 52) is unrelated to the claims Plaintiff 12 makes in his Amended Complaint. Dkt. 61. 13 On January 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed another motion for temporary restraining order 14 making similar allegations against Defendants and requesting the same or similar relief. Dkt. 65. 15 Plaintiff’s pleadings are hand written, with the lines very close together, and are very difficult to 16 read. On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed an additional pleading, entitled “Motion to Object to 17 Order Denying Plaintiff [sic] Motion for Order to Show Cause for an [sic] Preliminary Injunction 18 and A [sic] Emergency Temporary Restraining Order.” Dkt. 72. In this pleading, Plaintiff states 19 that he has not received legal mail since November 28, 2016. Id. Plaintiff then goes on to object 20 to specific portions of the January 25, 2017 Report and Recommendation, arguing that the relief 21 he seeks in his motions for temporary restraining orders is related to claims in his Amended 22 Complaint. Id. Plaintiff also requests that the Court order that he be transferred, arguing that he 23 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2 1 should not be housed in a facility where he has a pending lawsuit against the jail and jail staff. 2 Id. 3 Defendants respond, argue that the relief Plaintiff seeks is not related to the claims 4 remaining in his Amended Complaint. Dkt. 74. If the Court finds that some of the relief he 5 seeks is related to the remaining claims, the Defendants also request an opportunity to more fully 6 brief whether a TRO is appropriate. Id. 7 8 DISCUSSION The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 61) should be adopted, in part, and the case (and 9 all pending motions) re-referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 10 The portion of the Report and Recommendation that recommends denial of Plaintiff’s 11 motion for a temporary restraining order for an order stopping the Defendants from denying 12 Plaintiff the ability to send and receive any mail, harassing, assaulting, and retaliating against 13 him, and housing him in a strip cell in administrative segregation should be adopted. These 14 claims are unrelated to the claims remaining in the Amended Complaint, and so the motion 15 regarding them should be denied. “A court's equitable power lies only over the merits of the 16 case or controversy before it. When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in 17 the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation 18 Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). 19 To the extent the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 61) recommends denial of the 20 Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order stopping the Defendants from denying 21 Plaintiff access to his “legal box” or denying him access to legal materials, because these were 22 not claims asserted in his Amended Complaint, the Court should decline to adopt the Report and 23 Recommendation, and the matter should be re-referred to the Magistrate Judge and the parties 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 3 1 should brief the question on the merits. In his original complaint, Plaintiff raised claims 2 regarding access to his legal materials and law books while in the Pierce County Jail and 3 requested injunctive relief only as to those claims. Dkt. 4. After it became apparent that Plaintiff 4 had been transferred to a different facility (Dkt. 21) and in response to a motion by Plaintiff, a 5 Report and Recommendation was issued, recommending that Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims 6 regarding access to legal materials and law books asserted against the Pierce County Jail staff 7 were dismissed as moot (Dkt. 22). The Report and Recommendation informed Plaintiff that: 8 “[i]f Plaintiff returns to Pierce County Jail, ‘he is free to file a new motion and/or amend his 9 complaint to reflect his changed circumstances’ at that time.” Dkt. 22, at 3 (citing St. Hilaire v. 10 Arizona Department of Corrections, 934 F.2d 324, *1 (9th Cir. 1991)). On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff 11 filed an Amended Complaint, and even though at the time he was housed elsewhere, he again 12 requested injunctive relief for an order for the “jail and all the Defendants . . . to immediately 13 stop denying pretrial detainees access to law books and law computer while in administrative 14 segregation.” Dkt. 25. On September 16, 2016, the Report and Recommendation was adopted, 15 and Plaintiff’s claims related to access to legal materials and law books at the Pierce County jail 16 were dismissed as moot. Dkt. 39. 17 Plaintiff has returned to the Pierce County jail. Dkt. 62. In accord with the June 24, 2016 18 Report and Recommendation, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 19 order (Dkt. 52) on the issue of access to his legal materials and law books (and/or a law computer) 20 while in administrative segregation as a new motion to reassert those claims. In order to fully and 21 22 23 24 fairly hear all parties on this issue, both parties should have an opportunity to brief, on the merits, whether a temporary restraining order should issue on the question of access to legal materials and law books (and/or a law computer). The case, including all pending motions, should be re-referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 4 1 2 3 ORDER (1) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 61) IS:  ADOPTED, IN PART, the portion of Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary 4 restraining order (Dkt. 52) for an order stopping the Defendants from denying 5 Plaintiff the ability to send and receive any mail, harassing, assaulting, and 6 retaliating against him, and housing him in a strip cell in administrative 7 segregation IS DENIED; 8 9  NOT ADOPTED, IN PART; the portion of Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 52) relating to access to Plaintiff’s legal materials and law 10 books (and/or a law computer) while in administrative segregation IS RE- 11 REFERRED to Magistrate Judge David W. Christel for further proceedings; and 12 (2) This case, including all other pending motions, IS RE-REFERRED to Magistrate 13 Judge David W. Christel for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 14 (3) The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Magistrate Judge 15 David W. Christel, all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se at said 16 party’s last known address. 17 Dated this 16th day of February, 2017. A 18 19 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 5

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?