(PC) Washington v. Stark et al, No. 1:2018cv00564 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 42 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED re 29 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/23/2019. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 E. STARK, et.al., Defendants. 13 14 15 16 Case No.: 1:18-cv-00564-LJO-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED [ECF No. 42] Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed January 22, 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2019. 19 I. 20 DISCUSSION 21 A. 22 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural 23 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). For each form of relief sought in federal court, 24 Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield 25 v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under 26 threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and 27 imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the Legal Standards 28 1 1 defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury. 2 Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 3 Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 4 provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall 5 extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or 6 plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such 7 relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, 8 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. ' 9 3626(a)(1)(A). Thus, the federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue equitable 10 orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violations which 11 form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Steel Co. v. 12 Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (1998). 13 B. 14 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. Plaintiff 15 seeks an order “enjoining Defendants, the Mental Health Services Delivery System (MHSDS) at Kern 16 Valley State Prison (KVSP) and Custody staff employed at KVSP, from using “Outpatient Housing 17 Unit” (OHU) cells at the prison for the purpose of monitoring Inmates placed on Suicide-Watch 18 Observation status.” (Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff submits that his request for a copy of the suicide watch 19 observation notes/records for February 5 and 6, 2018, was denied because the documents were not in 20 his medical file. (Id. at 8.) 21 Analysis Plaintiff is advised that “[f]ederal courts have the implied or inherent power to issue 22 preservation orders as part of their general authority ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the 23 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F.Supp.2d 24 1063, 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135-36 25 (2004)). Spoliation occurs when a party destroys, significantly alters, or fails to preserve evidence in 26 pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 27 1001 (9th Cir. 2002). The authority to impose sanctions for spoliation arises from a court’s inherent 28 powers to control the judicial process. Medical Laboratory Mgmt. Consultants v. American 2 1 Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th Cir. 2002). The exercise of a court’s inherent 2 powers must be applied with “restraint and discretion” and only to the degree necessary to redress the 3 abuse. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991); see also Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric 4 Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir. 1994) (courts should choose “the least onerous sanction 5 corresponding to the willfulness of the destructive at and the prejudice suffered by the victim”). 6 A party seeking sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must establish the following 7 three elements: (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at 8 the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind” and (3) 9 that the evidence was “relevant” to the party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact 10 could find that it would support that claim or defense. Zubulake v. USB Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 11 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin’l Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 12 108 (2d Cir. 2002)). “After considering these factors, a court must then consider all available 13 sanctions and determine the appropriate one.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 881 14 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The party seeking spoliation sanctions has the burden of 15 establishing the elements of a spoliation claim. Centrifugal Force, Inc. v. Softnet Communication, 16 Inc., 783 F.Supp.2d 736, 740 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). 17 Plaintiff’s motion is not premised on any showing that relevant evidence has been destroyed. 18 While Plaintiff contends that a request for the suicide watch observation notes/records were not 19 located within his medical file, the Court cannot determine that such evidence is relevant or that it was 20 lost or intentionally destroyed during the pendency of this action. Zubalake, 220 F.R.D. at 220. 21 Discovery in this action is ongoing and the discovery deadline is currently set for June 9, 2019. To the 22 extent there is a dispute over whether certain evidence exists and/or should be disclosed, the proper 23 procedural mechanism is to file a motion to compel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 24 injunction should be denied. 25 II. 26 RECOMMENDATION 27 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 28 preliminary injunction be denied. 3 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 1 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 3 after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections 4 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 6 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 7 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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.
