(PC) Ellington v. Clark et al, No. 1:2009cv02141 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, filed December 9, 2009, be DENIED re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/1/2010. Motion Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 3/25/2010. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

(PC) Ellington v. Clark et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARCUS R. ELLINGTON, 9 10 11 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02141-AWI-DLB (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. CLARK, et al., 12 (Doc. 3) Defendants. 13 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS / 14 15 Findings and Recommendations 16 Plaintiff Marcus R. Ellington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his 18 complaint on December 9, 2009. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 19 injunctive relief, filed concurrently with his complaint. (Doc. 3.) 20 Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the settlement in Plata v. Davis, No. C-01-1351-TEH (N. 21 D. Cal.) against the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 22 (“CDCR”), doctors Patel and Giang, Chief Medical Officer Lopez, and Warden K. Harrington. 23 (Pl.’s Mot. 1.) Plaintiff seeks the return of his disability status, which he claims was improperly 24 denied pursuant to Armstrong.1 (Pl.’s Mot. 2.) Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction for a 25 wheelchair, walker, grab bars in his cell, double mattress, cotton blankets, and waist chain chrono. 26 1 27 28 The Court assumes that Plaintiff refers to the settlement agreement reached in Armstrong v. Davis, No. CV-94-02307-CW (N. D. Cal.). That agreement pertained to prisoners who qualified under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act who were improperly denied rights during parole. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2002). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 (Pl.’s Mot. 3.) Plaintiff appears to contend that he is a member of the Plata class action and seeks 3 enforcement of its settlement terms. A plaintiff who is a member of a class action for equitable 4 relief from prison conditions may not maintain a separate, individual suit for equitable relief within 5 the same subject matter of the class action. See McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165-66 6 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from unconstitutional prison 7 conditions cannot be brought where there is an existing class action”); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 8 F.2d 1101, 1103, 5th Cir. 1988 (en banc) (“To allow individual suits would interfere with the 9 orderly administration of the class action and risk inconsistent adjudications.”); Crawford v. Bell, 10 599 F.2d 890, 892-93 (9th Cir. 1979) (district court may dismiss individual plaintiff’s claims 11 where plaintiff is member of pending class action raising same claims); see also Stringham v. Lee, 12 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56031, * 19-20, 2008 WL 2880406 *7, 10 (E.D. Cal. 2008); cf. McNeil, 13 945 F.2d at 1166 (recognizing two exceptions to class action comity rule: claims for monetary 14 damages and claims “not being litigated within the boundaries of the class action”). Accordingly, 15 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied. 16 17 18 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed December 9, 2009, should be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 19 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 20 twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 21 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 22 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file 23 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 24 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a March 1, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.