(PC) Kawamoto v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., No. 1:2011cv01308 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete and Return Service Documents and Denying, without Prejudice, Requested Injunctive Relief 15 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/15/12. 30-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Kawamoto v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DARREN KAWAMOTO, CASE No. 1:11-cv-01308-MJS (PC) 10 11 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE AND RETURN SERVICE DOCUMENTS AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, REQUESTED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., (ECF Nos. 15) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 16 Defendants. 17 / 18 19 20 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 22 Plaintiff Darren Kawamoto is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis in this civil rights action filed August 8, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Consent, 25 ECF No. 5.) 26 On September 26, 2012, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, found it stated 27 -1- Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 cognizable claims against certain Defendants for violation of Plaintiff’s rights under by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and ordered Plaintiff to complete and return service documents within thirty days. 4 5 6 7 (Order Cogniz. Claims, ECF No. 8.) The Court has twice since extended time for Plaintiff to complete and return service. (Orders, ECF Nos. 10, 13.) Service documents are currently due from Plaintiff by not later than December 6, 2012. (Id.) 8 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a further thirty day extension of time to complete and return service documents and for injunctive relief forbidding all CDCR staff from interfering with Plaintiff’s access to courts. (Mot. for Ext. Time and Inj. 11 12 13 Relief, ECF No. 15.) II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 A. 15 “When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for 16 17 Extensions of Time good cause, extend the time . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The Court has wide discretion to extend time. Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 18 19 20 795 (9th Cir. 1996). A party must demonstrate some justification for the issuance of the enlargement order. Ginett v. Federal Express Corp., 166 F.3d 1213 at 5* (6th Cir. 21 1998). However, enlargement will normally be granted in the absence of bad faith on 22 the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party. Ahanchian v. 23 Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). 24 B. Injunctive Relief 25 26 Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, 27 -2- 1 never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 2 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 3 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 5 6 7 in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. An injunction may only be 8 awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 9 22. 10 11 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires that the Court find the “relief 12 [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of 13 14 15 the federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right.” 16 17 18 Injunctive relief should be used “sparingly, and only . . . in clear and plain case[s].” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976). III. ARGUMENT 19 Plaintiff is housed in Ad-Seg. (Mot. for Ext. Time and Inj. Relief at 2:5-6.) He 20 21 contends unidentified staff have denied him physical access to the prison law library 22 despite his November 6, 2012 request and pending court deadline. (Id. at 1:18-21.) This 23 has prevented his timely completion and return of service documents. (Id. at 1:22-24.) 24 25 Plaintiff seeks a further thirty day extension of time to complete and return service documents and also requests an injunction “forbidding any and all CDCR staff 26 from interfering in any way with [his] access to the courts when it is [his] designated 27 -3- 1 library use time per [his] housing and custody status”, and from “any retaliations that 2 may occur as a result of his asking the court to intercede.” (Id. at 3:4-21.) 3 IV. 4 ANALYSIS Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for further extension of time, but not 5 6 satisfied legal prerequisites for injunctive relief. 7 A. 8 Further extension of time is warranted based upon Plaintiff’s representations that 9 10 11 Further of Extension of Time his housing and custody status and lack of physical access to the law library presented difficulties in accessing information necessary for completion of his service documents. The Court finds good cause for a further thirty day extension of time for completion and 12 13 14 return of service documents. However, the Court has provided Plaintiff with service forms and instructions. He 15 need only complete and return them and the U.S. Marshall’s Office will serve 16 Defendants. Absent highly unusual circumstance, completion of the service documents 17 should not require extensive, if any, library research. Thus, absent some explanation of 18 extraordinary circumstances, the Court expects Plaintiff to complete and return all 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 service documents within this extended time period notwithstanding any continuing difficulties gaining library access. B. Injunctive Relief 1. No Showing of Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiff has failed at this early stage of the litigation to allege facts demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits. Defendants have not yet appeared and the 26 27 accommodation and equal protection claims found cognizable by the Court remain in -4- 1 2 3 dispute. Plaintiff’s operative Complaint does not contain any cognizable access to courts claim. His motion fails to explain why physical law library access is necessary to 4 completion of his service documents and that he has suffered “actual prejudice” with 5 respect to the instant action or other contemplated or existing litigation. Lewis v. Casey, 6 518 U.S. 343, 349 (9th Cir. 1996). In fact, no adverse action has been taken against him 7 8 9 in this case because of delay in service. Plaintiff's alleged need for relief from potential future denial of access to courts 10 and future retaliation is speculative and unsupported by any fact or cognizable claim in 11 this matter. 12 Plaintiff also fails to specify the individuals against whom he seeks injunctive 13 relief. Generalized injunctive relief against unidentified CDCR staff is not permissible. 14 15 The PLRA states that: 16 [T]he court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds 17 that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct 18 the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 19 20 correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system 21 22 caused by the relief. 23 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Similar requirements apply with respect to temporary 24 restraining orders and preliminary injunctive relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 25 26 2. No Irreparable Harm Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. See City of Los Angeles v. 27 -5- 1 Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of 2 injury, and “past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or 3 controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present, 4 adverse effects.”) He alleges no facts suggesting harm arising from his present lack of 5 6 7 physical access to the law library. The instant motion does not demonstrate that he has suffered “actual prejudice” in the absence of access. His underlying pleading alleges no 8 such risk of harm. 9 3. 10 11 Balance of Equities and Public Interest Not in Plaintiff’s Favor The absence of a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, and of irreparable harm leaves nothing to tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff's favor, or 12 suggest that an injunction would be in the public interest. 13 In any event, absent the existence of exceptional circumstances not present here, 14 15 the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day management of prisons. See e.g., Overton 16 v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison officials entitled to substantial deference); 17 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995) (disapproving the involvement of federal 18 courts in the day-to-day-management of prisons.) 19 Plaintiff's allegations do not support an entitlement to injunctive relief. 20 21 22 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Good cause having been presented to the Court, Plaintiff shall be granted a 23 further extension of time to complete and return service documents. Plaintiff has not 24 shown a need for or entitlement to injunctive relief. 25 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time 26 to complete and return service documents and for injunctive relief (ECF No. 15) is 27 -6- 1 GRANTED IN PART such that Plaintiff shall complete and return all service documents 2 provided to him under the Court’s November 2, 2012 order, by not later than thirty (30) 3 days following service hereof, and DENIED IN PART as to all injunctive relief requested 4 herein. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 8 ci4d6 December 15, 2012 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 -7-
]]>
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.
