Opinion
No. 2:19-cv-1874 DB P
04-06-2021
SHAWN DAMON BARTH, Plaintiff, v. EUSEBIO MONTEJO, Defendant.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, retaliated against him, and discriminated against him. Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion for a protective order and request for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 52.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will recommend that plaintiff's motion be denied.
I. Plaintiff's Motion
Plaintiff states that he is requesting an injunction because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is "refusing to follow rules, laws, regulations [and] polic[ies]." (ECF No. 52 at 1.) He claims he is being denied eyeglasses, dental care, and medication. (ECF No. 52 at 2.) He alleges he has submitted forms, but he has not received a response. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that his access to the courts, attorneys, mail and postage have been obstructed. (ECF No. 52 at 3.) ////
II. Legal Standards
A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).
Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff's favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the "serious questions" version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after Winter).
The principle purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court's power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial.
In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction 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 the harm." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Further, an injunction against individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) ("It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . . . resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party . . . .").
However, the fact that injunctive relief is sought from one not a party to litigation does not automatically preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 16519(a) permits the court to issue writs "necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977).
Further, preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate until the court finds that the plaintiff's complaint presents cognizable claims. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; [however] it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.").
III. Analysis
Plaintiff's underlying claim in this action is that defendant Montejo retaliated against him, failed to provide adequate medical treatment, and discriminated against him while he was incarcerated at California Medical Facility (CMF). (See Pl.'s Compl. (ECF No. 19); Order finding E-Service Appropriate (ECF No. 21 at 2-4).) In his motion plaintiff argues that various prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) have violated his rights by denying him medical treatment and interfered with his ability to send legal mail.
To the extent plaintiff feels that his civil rights have been violated based on conditions at SVSP, he may file a separate suit based on the allegations presented in his motion. However, it would be inappropriate for the court to grant relief based on allegations that are unrelated to the allegations at issue in this suit. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) ("When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have authority to issue an injunction.").
Plaintiff claims his grievances have not been addressed. However, attachments to this motion show that his grievances have been received. (See ECF No. 52 at 28-35.) Further, those same forms indicate review will be completed within sixty days.
Plaintiff also alleges that prison officials have interfered with his ability to litigate various legal actions. However, plaintiff was able to draft and send the instant motion with over 700 pages of exhibits. Thus, he has not shown that he is unable to access paper, pens, envelopes, or postage. To the extent that plaintiff needs additional time to meet deadlines in this action he may move for an extension of time. Any motions for extensions of time should state the amount of time requested and why an extension is necessary.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign this action to a District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 52) be denied.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: April 6, 2021
/s/_________
DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DB:12
DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/bart1874.inj