(PC) Ortiz v. Reynolds et al, No. 2:2010cv01380 - Document 110 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/07/14 granting 103 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff shall file his pretrial statement on or before 1/15/14. Within 21 days of the date of this order , defense counsel shall reserve any discovery responses he has served on plaintiff in this action. The clerk of the court is directed to provide plaintiff with a copy of the docket in this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction 109 be denied. Request for injunction 109 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ortiz v. Reynolds et al Doc. 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE B. ORTIZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-1380-MCE-EFB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. REYNOLDS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an application for an order granting him an additional 90 days to 19 prepare and file his pretrial statement. He has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. 20 ECF Nos. 103, 109. Plaintiff claims that he has been deprived of his legal materials, which he 21 needs to prepare the pretrial statement. The court requested defense counsel to inquire into the 22 status of plaintiff’s access to his legal materials. ECF No. 107. As discussed below, the court has 23 received counsel’s response. ECF No. 108. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s request for 24 additional time is granted, but it is recommended that the motion for injunctive relief be denied. 25 I. Motion for Extension of Time 26 Defense counsel learned from the Corcoran State Prison litigation coordinator that 27 plaintiff has some, but not all, of his legal materials and that one box of those materials may have 28 been lost. ECF No. 108-1 (Decl. of Elliott T. Seals) ¶ 3. Defense counsel spoke to plaintiff, who 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 confirmed that he is missing one box of legal materials that contains documents which he says he 2 needs for this case. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff was vague as to what documents he needed out of the 3 missing box, but did say he needed the court order giving instructions for preparing the pretrial 4 statement and some of his medical records. Id. Defense counsel sent the order to plaintiff, along 5 with relevant portions of the Local Rules. Id. ¶ 5. Defense counsel also provided copies of 6 defendants’ first and second motions for summary judgment, the associated findings and 7 recommendations, and a letter telling plaintiff he could get copies of the medical records he needs 8 by submitting a certain form to correctional authorities. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Defense counsel does not 9 oppose the motion for extension of time, but asks that, should plaintiff fail to file his pretrial 10 statement within the extended period, the action be dismissed with prejudice. 11 Because correctional personnel have lost some of plaintiff’s material relating to this case, 12 the court will grant the requested extension of time. The court admonishes plaintiff to act 13 diligently in that period to prepare his pretrial statement. Should plaintiff fail to file his pretrial 14 statement when due, the court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of this case. Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 16(f). 16 17 II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff requests an injunction. ECF No. 109. According to plaintiff, he has been the 18 subject of retaliation and harassment. He discusses the elements of retaliation and deliberate 19 indifference causes of action and mentions a hand fracture. He does not explain how he sustained 20 the fracture or how it relates to this case. He asks for a transfer to another prison and a copy of 21 “all documents I filed with the court” and a copy of the rules of civil procedure. 22 A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that 23 would impair the courts ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc. 24 v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 25 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching 26 power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 27 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). In order to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party 28 must demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable 2 1 harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 2 injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 3 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 4 249 (2008)). The Ninth Circuit has also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to 5 preliminary injunctions—that is, balancing the elements of the preliminary injunction test, so that 6 a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another—survives Winter and 7 continues to be valid. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010). 8 “In other words, ‘serious questions going to the merits,’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply 9 toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the 10 Winter test are also met.” Id. In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, 11 any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct 12 the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to 13 correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 14 Plaintiff’s motion does not establish these elements. Instead, it primarily addresses 15 conduct that is not a subject of this case and is thus unrelated to the merits of this case. Plaintiff’s 16 vague allegations of harassment and oblique references to an attack by another inmate and a hand 17 fracture are not sufficient to establish that preliminary injunctive relief is necessary. While it 18 appears that some of plaintiff’s legal documents have been lost, it does not appear that an 19 injunction would result in their reappearance. Rather, the court will grant plaintiff the additional 20 time he has requested to obtain copies of the documents he needs and to reconstitute any lost 21 research and will direct defense counsel to reserve discovery responses on plaintiff. If plaintiff 22 seeks additional copies from the docket, he must specifically identify them and tell the court why 23 he needs them; the court will not direct the clerk to copy tens of docket entries without any 24 indication of their necessity. If plaintiff believes that he has been the subject of retaliation, or has 25 suffered an attack by a fellow inmate due to correctional authorities’ deliberate indifference, or 26 wishes financial compensation for his lost documents, he must litigate those issues in another case 27 after exhausting them administratively. 28 ///// 3 1 III. Order and Recommendation 2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s September 15, 2014 motion for extension of time is granted, and plaintiff 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 shall file his pretrial statement on or before Thursday, January 15, 2014. 2. Within 21 days of the date of this order, defense counsel shall reserve any discovery responses he has served on plaintiff in this action; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide plaintiff with a copy of the docket in this action. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 109) be DENIED. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 13 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 16 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 17 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 Dated: November 7, 2014. 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.
