Bondurant v. Gonzalez et al
Filing
24
ORDER Denying 22 Request for Entry of Default, Denying 21 Motion Requiring Defendants to Reply, Denying 20 Motion for Injunctive Relief, and Denying 15 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 6/16/11. (Gonzalez, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
TRAVIS BONDURANT,
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00159-GBC (PC)
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
12
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ENTRY
OF DEFAULT, DENYING MOTION
REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO REPLY,
DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF, AND DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Defendants.
13
/ (ECF Nos. 22, 21, 20, & 15)
14
15
16
17
ORDER
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
18
Plaintiff Travis Bondurant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff began this
20
action on January 28, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint
21
on March 17, 2011. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff’s Complaint has yet to be screened by this
22
Court.
23
II.
DEFENDANTS: DEFAULT & REQUIRED RESPONSE
24
On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Declaration for Entry of Default”.
25
(ECF No. 22.) The Court construes this filing as a request to enter default against the
26
Defendants based on their failure to plead or otherwise defend against this action. On May
27
9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Notice of Motion for Defendant to Reply”. (ECF
28
No. 21.) In it, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to respond to his
1
Complaint.
2
As Plaintiff was informed in the New Case Documents issued by the Court on
3
January 31, 2011 (ECF No. 6), the Court is required to screen complaints brought by
4
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
5
governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion
6
thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to
7
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
8
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Because of its
9
large caseload, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint.
10
The Court will screen Plaintiff’s Complaint in due course. The Court will direct the
11
United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff’s Complaint only after the Court has screened the
12
Complaint and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named
13
Defendants. Defendants are required to answer or otherwise defend against Plaintiff’s
14
Complaint only after they have been properly served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. The default
15
provisions of Rule 55(a) are not implicated until after service has occurred.
16
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default (ECF No. 22) is DENIED and
17
Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring Defendants to respond (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.
18
III.
19
20
21
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief on May 9, 2011. (ECF No. 20.) In it,
Plaintiff requests a return to double cell status and group yard.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”
22
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation
23
omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
24
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
25
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
26
the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon
27
a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis
28
added).
-2-
1
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for
2
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary
3
matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
4
U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church
5
and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or
6
controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of
7
injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s
8
case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
9
burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,
10
103-04 (1998).
11
The standard for a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary
12
injunction, with the exception that the plaintiff must show actual success, rather than a
13
likelihood of success. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.
14
12 (1987). However, the Ninth Circuit has recently revived the “serious questions” sliding
15
scale test, and ruled that a preliminary injunction may be appropriate when a plaintiff
16
demonstrates serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips
17
sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052-53
18
(9th Cir. 2010).
19
In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison
20
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires that any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly
21
drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires
22
preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18
23
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Moreover, where, as here, “a plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary
24
injunction that goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should be
25
extremely cautious’ about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief
26
unless the facts and law clearly favor the plaintiff.” Committee of Central American
27
Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Martin v. International
28
Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)).
-3-
1
Plaintiff fails to meet the all of the legal standards required to be granted an
2
injunction. To succeed on a motion for such relief, Plaintiff must establish that he is likely
3
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
4
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
5
the public interest. Plaintiff has not met any of these standards. In fact, Plaintiff does not
6
address any of these standards even though he was previously notified of them in his prior
7
motions for injunctive relief.
8
The current motion merely makes statements regarding Plaintiff’s single cell status
9
and walk alone yard and that he would like his full liberties restored. First, Plaintiff has not
10
demonstrated that he will succeed on the merits of his case. He does not address the
11
merits of his case at all. Second, he does not refer to any irreparable harm that he is likely
12
to suffer. Finally, Plaintiff does not address the balance of equities or the public interest
13
components at all.
14
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief
15
(ECF No. 20) is DENIED. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,
16
which is yet to be screened, also requests similar injunctive relief. In the event the Court
17
finds that the Complaint states a cognizable claim, the Court will revisit Plaintiff’s request
18
for injunctive relief as outlined in the Complaint.
19
IV.
20
21
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
On April 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF
No. 15.)
22
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand
23
v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney
24
to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District
25
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989).
26
However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary
27
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
28
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will
-4-
1
seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining
2
whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood
3
of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in
4
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
5
citations omitted).
6
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
7
Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
8
serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.
9
This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the
10
proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on
11
the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that
12
Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
13
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is
14
DENIED.
15
V.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
16
For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1.
Plaintiff’s request for Entry of Default (ECF No. 22) is DENIED;
18
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Defendant to Reply (ECF No. 21) is DENIED;
19
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 20) is DENIED; and
20
4.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated:
1j0bbc
June 16, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
-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?
