(PC) Mitchell v. Haviland, et al, No. 2:2009cv03012 - Document 124 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/26/13 ORDERING plaintiff's motion to dispense with the requirement of security 117 is denied without prejudice. The clerk of the court is directed to se nd plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 USC 1983. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 116 be denied. MOTION for injunctive relief 116 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL, 12 13 14 No. 2:09-cv-3012 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER and J. HAVILAND, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 18 Introduction Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This civil rights action is 19 proceeding on plaintiff’s claims that, while he was housed at California State Prison-Solano 20 (“CSP-SOL”), defendant Rosario used excessive force on plaintiff on August 5, 2008, and that 21 defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire retaliated against plaintiff in early 2009. On November 22 12, 2009, plaintiff was transferred from CSP-SOL to the California State Prison in Corcoran 23 (“CSP-COR”). (ECF No. 6.) On April 15, 2011, plaintiff was transferred from CSP-COR to the 24 California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran (“SATF”). (ECF 25 No. 39.) 26 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 27 28 Plaintiff’s December 4, 2013 motion for temporary restraining order is before the court. (ECF No. 15.) In this 75 page filing, plaintiff sets forth a list of alleged constitutional violations 1 1 from August 5, 2008, while plaintiff was housed at CSP-SOL, to November 22, 2013, while 2 plaintiff was, and remains, housed at SATF. (ECF No. 116 at 2-15.) As noted by defendants, 3 many of the alleged violations were allegedly committed in retaliation for plaintiff’s prison 4 appeals and lawsuits, all of which occurred at CSP-COR or the SATF. Plaintiff seeks an order 5 restraining defendants in Mitchell v. Pena, Case No. 1:11-cv-1205 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal., Fresno 6 Div.) from retaliating against plaintiff, and from violating his constitutional rights. Liberally 7 construed, in his motion plaintiff also seeks a court order directing defendants Rosario, Garcia, 8 and McGuire to contact all the named individuals located at CSP-COR and SATF and inform 9 them of the court’s order directing them to abstain from such alleged actions. 10 In their opposition, defendants contend that this court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order 11 restraining the actions of CSP-COR and SATF employees because none of the defendants named 12 herein work at CSP-COR or SATF, and none have the authority to ensure compliance with the 13 court’s order at CSP-COR or SATF. 14 On December 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a letter in which he claims that in his request for 15 temporary restraining order he asked that the officers not move plaintiff from Cell D-4-250L. 16 (ECF No. 123.) However, plaintiff claims that officers at SATF read plaintiff’s motion and 17 moved plaintiff on December 1, 2013, to a cell with feces on the walls. Plaintiff contends that 18 SATF staff continue to harass and retaliate against plaintiff. 19 Upon review of plaintiff’s motion and supporting documents, as set forth more fully 20 below, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion should be denied. 21 Legal Standard for Injunctive Relief 22 Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is an 23 extraordinary and temporary “fix” that the court may issue without notice to the adverse party if, 24 in an affidavit or verified complaint, the movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable 25 injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in 26 opposition.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to 27 preserve the status quo pending a fuller hearing. See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see also, L. R. 28 231(a). It is the practice of this district to construe a motion for temporary restraining order as a 2 1 motion for preliminary injunction. Local Rule 231(a); see also, e.g., Aiello v. OneWest Bank, 2 2010 WL 406092, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (providing that “‘[t]emporary restraining orders are 3 governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions’”) (citations omitted). 4 The party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed 5 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 6 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 7 Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 8 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief 9 hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean 10 Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 11 Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff 12 demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the 13 public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits 14 of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for 15 Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious 16 questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after 17 Winter). 18 The principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to 19 render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 20 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). As noted above, in addition to 21 demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary 22 injunction, plaintiff must show a “fair chance of success on the merits” of his claim. Sports 23 Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal citation 24 omitted). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there 25 will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is 26 brought to trial. In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any 27 preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the 28 //// 3 1 harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to 2 correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 3 In addition, as a general rule this court is unable to issue an order against individuals who 4 are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 5 U.S. 100 (1969). 6 Analysis 7 In the instant motion, plaintiff challenges actions that took place at CSP-COR and SATF, 8 both of which are in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, against individuals 9 employed at CSP-COR and SATF, who are not named as defendants herein. However, in the 10 operative complaint herein, plaintiff challenges concrete actions taken in 2008 and 2009 at CSP- 11 SOL by defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire. The facts underlying plaintiff’s claims for 12 injunctive relief are unrelated to plaintiff’s claims in this action, and occurred long after the 13 incidents at issue herein. This court lacks jurisdiction to address claims not contained within the 14 operative complaint because the claims will not be given a hearing on the merits at trial. 15 Moreover, plaintiff’s claims supporting his motion for injunctive relief are based on 16 unrelated actions taken by correctional staff not named as defendants herein. “Unrelated claims 17 against different defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 18 Cir. 2007). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over the individuals located at CSP-COR and 19 SATF named in the motion. Plaintiff cannot defeat this jurisdictional hurdle by simply reiterating 20 his unrelated claims against defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire, or asking the court to 21 direct defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire to notify prison staff at CSP-COR or SATF. 22 Finally, plaintiff is no longer housed at CSP-SOL, and is therefore no longer subject to 23 actions by defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire. Thus, motions for injunctive relief against 24 defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire are moot. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 100. 25 Plaintiff should not renew motions for injunctive relief in this action because this action proceeds 26 solely as to plaintiff’s claims that arose in 2008 and 2009. 27 28 The court is concerned that plaintiff is engaged in a hunger strike in an effort to get SATF prison officials to address his myriad concerns concerning alleged staff harassment and 4 1 retaliation. However, on two prior occasions, plaintiff was advised that this court lacked 2 jurisdiction to hear claims not included in the operative complaint. (ECF Nos. 30, 72.) Indeed, 3 plaintiff is delaying his efforts to obtain relief by attempting to pursue such unrelated claims in 4 this action. In addition, plaintiff is presently pursuing litigation in Mitchell v. Pena, Case No. 5 1:11-cv-1205 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal., Fresno Div.), as well as in Mitchell v. Norton, Case No. 1:12- 6 cv-0331 GSA (E.D. Cal., Fresno Div.), and may seek injunctive relief against pertinent 7 defendants in those actions. Or, plaintiff may file a new civil rights action in the Fresno Division 8 of the Eastern District of California. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form 9 for filing a civil rights action. 10 The claims on which plaintiff’s motion is predicated are not included in the operative 11 complaint on which this action is proceeding, and do not raise allegations against the defendants 12 remaining in this action. For that reason, the claims will not be given a hearing on the merits at 13 trial. Thus, the court cannot grant plaintiff injunctive relief, and recommends that plaintiff’s 14 motion for such relief be denied. In light of this recommendation, plaintiff’s motion to dispense 15 with security is denied without prejudice. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s motion to dispense with the requirement of security (ECF No. 117) is denied 18 19 20 21 22 without prejudice; 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 116) be denied. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 28 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 5 1 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: December 26, 2013 4 5 mitc3012.tro3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

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.