(PC) Ransom v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations, et al., No. 1:2011cv00068 - Document 85 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to: 1) Dney Plaintiff's Motion for PLU Status 70 ; and 2) Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 71 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/1/15: Fourteen (14) Day Objection Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 BRYAN E. RANSOM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 Case No. 1: 11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: 1) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PLU STATUS (ECF No. 70); AND 2) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 71) FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 20 rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 21 Defendants Bondoc, Madina, Swingle, Neubarth, Corea and Dhah on Plaintiff’s Eighth 22 Amendment medical indifference claims.1 (ECF Nos. 21 & 26.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status (ECF No. 70.) and motion for 23 24 a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 71.). Defendants 25 Bondoc, Neubarth, and Swingle opposed the motions. (ECF Nos. 72 & 73.) No other 26 Defendants filed an opposition, and Plaintiff did not reply. The time to do so has 27 1 Defendant Greaves was dismissed (ECF No. 67.), and Defendant Punt has defaulted (ECF 28 Nos. 53 & 54.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 passed. These matters are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). I. MOTION FOR PLU STATUS Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Corcoran State Prison Law Library to provide him with “Priority Library User” (“PLU”) status. status he will not have sufficient access to the library to comply with the Court’s discovery deadlines. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because: 1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Corcoran law library, 2) Plaintiff has adequate law library access under the Code of Regulations and as demonstrated by his litigiousness to date, 3) Plaintiff could request PLU status from the library based on his discovery deadlines, and 4) Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies on said request. There is no indication that any of the named Defendants have any influence over the policies and practices of Corcoran State Prison Law Library. The Court has no power to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). To date, it appears that Plaintiff has been able to meet the Court’s deadlines, and when he has not been able to do so and has shown good cause, the Court has granted him extensions of time. Should Plaintiff need additional time in the future, he can file a motion seeking an extension at that time. The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED. II. 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff contends that without such MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring Corcoran State Prison to provide him with a complete copy of his Central file (“C-File”) and his medical records from 2003 to present addressing his chronic Hepatitis-C and joint pain. 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Parties’ Arguments Plaintiff contends that he needs a copy of his C-File and medical records in order to litigate this case. He states that he requested his 2004 to 2010 medical records from Defendant Bondoc, but Defendant objected that he lacked access to Plaintiff’s medical records; he provided Plaintiff a release form to obtain his records. When Plaintiff requested the records through the proper channels, he received only a small portion of his relevant medical records. Plaintiff was informed that he would need to pay for copies of his C-File or “go thru the courts in regards to discovery.” (ECF No. 71 at 16.) Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Corcoran State Prison, and Plaintiff’s motion is an improper request for discovery. B. Legal Standard Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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.” 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). C. Analysis Again, Plaintiff is seeking relief against a non-party. The Court does not have jurisdiction over Corcoran State Prison, and thus cannot issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against it. See Zenith, 395 U.S. at 112; Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, Plaintiff fails to address any of the above factors in his motion, and, in any event, it appears that Plaintiff has access to the materials that he seeks. 26 27 28 3 1 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 2 3 4 5 The Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over Corcoran State Prison or its Law Library, and Plaintiff has not established his entitlement to a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. RECOMMENDS that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status be DENIED; and 2. 7 Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 8 injunction be DENIED. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: September 1, 2015 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.