Carlos Manwell Dawson v. Jeff Lynch, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00510
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, No. 2:21-cv-0510 DC AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF 19 No. 87) and defendant Bobbala’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 92). 20 I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 21 Plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in which he request that he be 22 granted medical single cell status and transferred to California Medical Facility. ECF No. 87 at 8. 23 Defendants Bobbala, Ma, and Uddin oppose the motion. ECF Nos. 88, 89. 24 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 25 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 26 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 27 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). In order to prevail on a 28 motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the Ninth Circuit has also held 1 that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the 2 underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth 3 in the underlying complaint itself. The relationship between the preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently 4 strong where the preliminary injunction would grant “relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers 5 Consol. Mines[ v. United States], 325 U.S. [212,] 220, 65 S. Ct. 1130 [(1945)]. Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks 6 authority to grant the relief requested. 7 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 8 Plaintiff’s claims related to the discontinuation of his single cell status and denial of a 9 transfer to a medical prison were dismissed at the screening stage. ECF Nos. 51, 70. Because 10 these claims have been dismissed and the remaining claims are not related to his cell status or 11 prison assignment, he cannot show any likelihood of success on the merits. 12 A district court also has no authority to grant relief in the form of a preliminary injunction 13 where it has no jurisdiction over the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 14 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district . . . 15 court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.” (alteration in original) 16 (citation and internal quotation omitted)). Plaintiff states that he is attempting to enjoin conduct 17 by Salinas Valley State Prison custody, administrative, and medical staff. ECF No. 87 at 1. In 18 opposing the motion, defendants Bobbala, Ma, and Uddin assert they have no authority to provide 19 the relief plaintiff seeks because they are employed at California State Prison, Sacramento (ECF 20 No. 88 at 4; ECF No. 89 at 5), and while Soltanian-Zadeh has not responded to the motion, his 21 motion to modify the scheduling order reflects that he has retired from the California Department 22 of Corrections (ECF No. 90-1 at 2). It is therefore clear that plaintiff is not attempting to enjoin 23 defendants’ conduct. The court lacks jurisdiction over the non-party Salinas Valley State Prison 24 employees unless plaintiff provides facts showing that they are acting “in active concert or 25 participation” with the defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 26 Rsch., Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (“[A] nonparty with notice cannot be held in contempt until 27 shown to be in concert or participation.”)). Plaintiff has failed to provide any such facts. 28 For these reasons, the motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. 1 II. Motion to Compel 2 Defendant Bobbala has filed a motion to compel. ECF No. 92. After plaintiff failed to 3 respond to the motion, the court ordered him to do so within twenty-one days and cautioned that 4 failure to respond could result in the imposition of sanctions or a recommendation that this action 5 be dismissed. ECF No. 93. Twenty-one days have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed any 6 response to the motion. 7 Bobbala served interrogatories and requests for production on plaintiff on March 4, 2025. 8 ECF No. 3. After plaintiff failed to respond to the discovery requests, defense counsel sent him a 9 letter regarding the failure and then had a telephone call with him where she agreed to extend his 10 deadline to submit responses. ECF No. 92 at 3. Approximately two weeks later, and after the 11 agreed upon deadline had passed, plaintiff left a voicemail for counsel saying he hoped to have 12 the responses in the mail by May 26, 2025. Id. As of the July 9, 2025, filing of the motion to 13 compel, Bobbala had not received plaintiff’s responses. ECF No. 92. 14 Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery requests and to the motion to compel, and he 15 has not provided any explanation for his failures to act.1 Accordingly, defendant Bobbala’s 16 motion to compel will be granted and plaintiff will be required to provide responses to the 17 interrogatories and requests for production without objection. Having initiated this lawsuit, 18 plaintiff has an obligation to pursue it diligently, and that includes participating in the discovery 19 process. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, he will be subject to sanctions, which shall 20 range up to dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 21 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110. 22 CONCLUSION 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Defendant Bobbala’s motion to compel (ECF No. 92) is granted. 25 2. Within fourteen days of the service of this order, plaintiff must provide responses to 26

27 1 The requests for discovery appear to be reasonably related to the issues in this case. ECF No. 92 at 10-11, 15. However, even if the requests were not reasonably related, plaintiff would still 28 be obligated to at least raise any objections he might have to the requests. 1 | defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production without objection. 2 3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, he will be subject to sanctions which shall 3 || range up to dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 4 | See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L-R. 110. 5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 6 || (ECF No. 87) be DENIED. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 12 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 13 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 14 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 || DATED: September 26, 2025 ~ 16 ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28