1 WO 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 John Edward James, III, No. CV-21-00305-TUC-JCH
9 Plaintiff, ORDER
10 v.
11 Unknown Adame,
12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff John Edward James, III, who is currently confined in the Pima County 15 Adult Detention Center (PCADC), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1983. (Doc. 16.) Before the Court is Plaintiff's filing entitled "Order for Jail to Show 17 Cause Intercepting and Withhold [sic] Legal Mail." (Doc. 41.) In sum, Plaintiff argues that 18 his incoming and outgoing U.S. mail is being withheld by the Pima County Adult Detention 19 Complex (P.C.A.D.C.) which is hindering his participation in the underlying action. (See 20 id.) Plaintiff makes three separate motions: (1) issue an Order to Show Cause on 21 P.C.A.D.C.; (2) order a new scheduling order so that Plaintiff may comply with the pretrial 22 deadlines; and (3) provide Plaintiff with a documents list "to verify which documents the 23 Court received from [] or sent to Plaintiff." (Id. at 5.) Defendant Adame filed a Response 24 indicating that: (a) he objects to an Order to Show Cause because P.C.A.D.C. is not a party 25 to this action and because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief; and (b) 26 he has no objection to extending the deadlines in the scheduling order. (Doc. 42.) 27 Defendant did not indicate a position with respect to Plaintiff's request for a "documents 28 list." (See id.) 1 I. Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 2 Plaintiff's request for an Order to Show Cause is more properly construed as a 3 motion for preliminary injunctive relief because he seeks both an order to show cause and 4 an order directing P.C.A.D.C. to implement a receipt system for the collection and issuance 5 of incoming and outgoing mail. (See Doc. 41 at 1, 5.) 6 A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure must show: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer 8 irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his 9 favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 10 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than a 11 prohibitory injunction, injunctive relief is "subject to a higher standard" and is "permissible 12 when 'extreme or very serious damage will result' that is not 'capable of compensation in 13 damages,' and the merits of the case are not 'doubtful.'" Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 14 976, 999 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 15 Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009)). Further, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 16 injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive means necessary to 17 correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 18 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 19 Here, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claim as P.C.A.D.C. is not 20 a party to the instant action. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Center, 21 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[w]hen a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on 22 claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 23 injunction”); see also Prince v. Schriro, et al., CV 08-1299- PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, 24 at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (unless a claim concerns access to the courts, the Plaintiff 25 must show a nexus between the relief sought and the claims in the lawsuit.). Moreover, 26 Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Adame is involved in any of the claims referred to 27 in his motion. A court may issue an injunction against a non-party only where the non- 28 party acts in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) 1 (a preliminary injunction only binds those who receive actual notice of it by personal 2 service or are parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons 3 in active concert); see Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court 4 may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 5 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before 6 the court.”) Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's request, his motion 7 for injunctive relief is denied. 8 II. Motion to Stay Current Deadlines 9 On December 29, 2022, Defendant Adame filed "Defendant's Motion for Summary 10 Judgment (Failure to Exhaust – Prison Reform Litigation Act)." (Doc. 44.) On 11 January 3, 2023, the Court issued a Notice, under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th 12 Cir.1998), informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to the motion and his 13 requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 46). In light of the pending 14 summary judgment motion, Plaintiff's request to amend the Scheduling Order is best 15 addressed as a motion to stay the current deadlines. 16 District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay a case. See Landis 17 v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to 18 the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 19 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). The moving party 20 has the burden to show that a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 21 (1997). In determining whether to enter a stay, the court must consider the competing 22 interests at stake, including (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting 23 of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go 24 forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 25 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from 26 a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 27 254–55). 28 Applying the relevant factors to this case, a stay is warranted. The Court has 1 reviewed the pending motion for summary judgment, and it appears to present a colorable 2 defense based on exhaustion. (See Doc. 44.) If granted, Defendant Adame's summary 3 judgment motion will resolve the case in its entirety. Based on the foregoing, the parties’ 4 time and resources will be conserved by a stay. Thus, the Court will vacate all deadlines, 5 except those deadlines related to the summary judgment briefing. (See Doc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 John Edward James, III, No. CV-21-00305-TUC-JCH
9 Plaintiff, ORDER
10 v.
11 Unknown Adame,
12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff John Edward James, III, who is currently confined in the Pima County 15 Adult Detention Center (PCADC), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1983. (Doc. 16.) Before the Court is Plaintiff's filing entitled "Order for Jail to Show 17 Cause Intercepting and Withhold [sic] Legal Mail." (Doc. 41.) In sum, Plaintiff argues that 18 his incoming and outgoing U.S. mail is being withheld by the Pima County Adult Detention 19 Complex (P.C.A.D.C.) which is hindering his participation in the underlying action. (See 20 id.) Plaintiff makes three separate motions: (1) issue an Order to Show Cause on 21 P.C.A.D.C.; (2) order a new scheduling order so that Plaintiff may comply with the pretrial 22 deadlines; and (3) provide Plaintiff with a documents list "to verify which documents the 23 Court received from [] or sent to Plaintiff." (Id. at 5.) Defendant Adame filed a Response 24 indicating that: (a) he objects to an Order to Show Cause because P.C.A.D.C. is not a party 25 to this action and because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief; and (b) 26 he has no objection to extending the deadlines in the scheduling order. (Doc. 42.) 27 Defendant did not indicate a position with respect to Plaintiff's request for a "documents 28 list." (See id.) 1 I. Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 2 Plaintiff's request for an Order to Show Cause is more properly construed as a 3 motion for preliminary injunctive relief because he seeks both an order to show cause and 4 an order directing P.C.A.D.C. to implement a receipt system for the collection and issuance 5 of incoming and outgoing mail. (See Doc. 41 at 1, 5.) 6 A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure must show: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer 8 irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his 9 favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 10 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than a 11 prohibitory injunction, injunctive relief is "subject to a higher standard" and is "permissible 12 when 'extreme or very serious damage will result' that is not 'capable of compensation in 13 damages,' and the merits of the case are not 'doubtful.'" Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 14 976, 999 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 15 Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009)). Further, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 16 injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive means necessary to 17 correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 18 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 19 Here, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claim as P.C.A.D.C. is not 20 a party to the instant action. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Center, 21 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[w]hen a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on 22 claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 23 injunction”); see also Prince v. Schriro, et al., CV 08-1299- PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, 24 at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (unless a claim concerns access to the courts, the Plaintiff 25 must show a nexus between the relief sought and the claims in the lawsuit.). Moreover, 26 Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Adame is involved in any of the claims referred to 27 in his motion. A court may issue an injunction against a non-party only where the non- 28 party acts in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) 1 (a preliminary injunction only binds those who receive actual notice of it by personal 2 service or are parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons 3 in active concert); see Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court 4 may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 5 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before 6 the court.”) Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's request, his motion 7 for injunctive relief is denied. 8 II. Motion to Stay Current Deadlines 9 On December 29, 2022, Defendant Adame filed "Defendant's Motion for Summary 10 Judgment (Failure to Exhaust – Prison Reform Litigation Act)." (Doc. 44.) On 11 January 3, 2023, the Court issued a Notice, under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th 12 Cir.1998), informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to the motion and his 13 requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. 46). In light of the pending 14 summary judgment motion, Plaintiff's request to amend the Scheduling Order is best 15 addressed as a motion to stay the current deadlines. 16 District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay a case. See Landis 17 v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to 18 the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 19 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). The moving party 20 has the burden to show that a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 21 (1997). In determining whether to enter a stay, the court must consider the competing 22 interests at stake, including (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting 23 of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go 24 forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 25 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from 26 a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 27 254–55). 28 Applying the relevant factors to this case, a stay is warranted. The Court has 1 reviewed the pending motion for summary judgment, and it appears to present a colorable 2 defense based on exhaustion. (See Doc. 44.) If granted, Defendant Adame's summary 3 judgment motion will resolve the case in its entirety. Based on the foregoing, the parties’ 4 time and resources will be conserved by a stay. Thus, the Court will vacate all deadlines, 5 except those deadlines related to the summary judgment briefing. (See Doc. 46.) The Court 6 will also stay merits-based discovery. If the Court denies the motion for summary 7 judgment, then the Court will reset any necessary deadlines, and lift the stay on merits- 8 based discovery. 9 III. Motion for Copy of Docket Sheet 10 Plaintiff requests "a copy of the documents list to verify which documents the Court 11 received from [] or sent to Plaintiff" which the Court refers to as 12 a Docket Sheet. (Doc. 41 at 5.) The Court will grant the Motion to the extent that the Court 13 will direct the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket for this case. The Court 14 will deny the Motion with respect to all other relief requested. To the extent Plaintiff 15 requests copies of particular documents, filings, or orders, Plaintiff is informed that the 16 Clerk of Court charges 50 cents per page for reproducing any record or paper. See 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1914(4)(a). The fact that the Court has granted leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma 18 pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of documents from the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish copies without cost to an indigent petitioner 20 except by order of the judge. To request copies at this juncture, Plaintiff must submit 21 a request in writing to the Clerk, a large self-addressed envelope affixed with sufficient 22 postage, and prepayment of copy costs to the Clerk. Plaintiff is advised that in the future, 23 he should keep a copy of any document he submits to the Court. 24 25 26 27 28 /// IV. Order 2 IT IS ORDERED DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff's || Motion (Doc. 41), specifically the Court: 4 (1) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief; 5 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines, except 6 those deadlines related to the motion for summary judgment (see Doc. 46); 7 Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, 8 together with a separate Statement of Facts and supporting affidavits, remains 9 January 31, 2023; and Defendant may file a reply within 15 days after service 10 of Plaintiff's response; and 11 (3) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for copy of docket sheet; the Clerk of Court must 12 send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet for this case; and the Motion is denied 13 with respect to all other relief requested. 14 15 || Dated this 5th day of January, 2023. 16 17 □
onorable John C. Hinderaker 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_5-