1 WO MGD 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Edward Lee Jones, Sr., No. CV 18-01972-PHX-MTL (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 GEO Group, et al., 13 Defendants.
14 15 Plaintiff Edward Lee Jones, Sr., who is currently confined in the Arizona State 16 Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Before the Court is a Motion entitled “Plaintiff’s Emergency Motions for Injunction against 18 the Arizona Department of Corrections officials/staff at SMU-1” (Doc. 106), which 19 Plaintiff filed in four pending cases.1 20 The Court will deny the Motion filed in this action. 21 I. Background 22 On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated 23 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and First Amendment free speech 24 and free exercise claims in Counts One through Eight against Defendants Ryan, 25 McWilliams, Lauchner, Slade, Olson, Reese, Miller and Mattson and required those 26 27
28 1 Plaintiff also filed the Motion in CV 19-08055-PCT-MTL (JZB), CV 18-02034- PHX-MTL (JZB), and CV 18-04872-PHX-MTL (JZB). 1 Defendants to answer the claims against them as set forth in the screening Order. (Docs. 2 18, 63.) 3 II. Motion for Injunctive Relief 4 In his “Emergency Motions for Injunction” filed on November 21, 2019, Plaintiff 5 requests an order from the Court ordering Sergeant Harris to “provide all of Plaintiff’s legal 6 boxes/legal books, for ADC to be directed not to take Plaintiff’s legal boxes/legal books, . 7 . . [and] for SMU1 officials to provide Plaintiff with indigent hygiene and access to proper 8 forms to exhaust the grievance process.” (Doc. 106 at 1.) 9 Plaintiff complains that between July 23, 2019 and November 7, 2019, “staff” at 10 Rynning unit provided him “indigent” supplies only four times. (Id.at 2.) Plaintiff asserts 11 that “in the last 12 months,” Sergeant Harris and his subordinates have lost or wrongfully 12 destroyed Plaintiff’s property. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff asserts that despite multiple requests, 13 staff will not return his legal property and as a result he has been unable to respond to 14 motions filed in this case and in CV 18-4872. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff appears to say that he 15 has not been able to respond to Defendant Mattson’s Motion to Dismiss at Doc. 101. (See 16 id.) Plaintiff also states that “[p]risoners are being hindered from the grievance process..” 17 (Id. at 5.) 18 Defendants respond that Plaintiff arrived at ASPC-Eyman-SMU-1 on November 7, 19 2019 and received his property by no later than December 4, 2019. (Doc. 110 at 2.) 20 Plaintiff had 6 legal boxes in his property, but prisoners are only allowed 3 boxes in their 21 living area at any one time, and the excess boxes were placed in storage. (Id.) Plaintiff 22 may request to exchange boxes from his housing area to receive boxes from storage, but 23 Sergeant Harris has not received any written requests from Plaintiff for a legal box 24 exchange. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a reply or respond to Defendants’ assertion that he 25 had not requested to exchange his legal boxes. 26 A. Legal Standard 27 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 28 not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” 1 Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 2 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 3 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 4 never awarded as of right”). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that 5 (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without 6 an injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the 7 public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “But if a plaintiff can only show that there are 8 ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the 9 merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips 10 sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,’ and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell 11 Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance 12 for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under this serious 13 questions variant of the Winter test, “[t]he elements . . . must be balanced, so that a stronger 14 showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Lopez, 680 F.3d at 15 1072. 16 Regardless of which standard applies, the movant “has the burden of proof on each 17 element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 18 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). Further, there is a heightened burden where a plaintiff seeks a 19 mandatory preliminary injunction, which should not be granted “unless the facts and law 20 clearly favor the plaintiff.” Comm. of Cent. Am. Refugees v. INS, 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th 21 Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). 22 The Prison Litigation Reform Act imposes additional requirements on prisoner 23 litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials and requires that 24 any injunctive relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means necessary to correct 25 the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 26 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 27 A court may issue an injunction against a non-party only where the non-party acts 28 in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (a 1 preliminary injunction only binds those who receive actual notice of it by personal service 2 or are parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in 3 active concert); see Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A federal court may 4 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.”); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 7 (1969). 8 B. Discussion 9 As an initial matter, Plaintiff may not seek relief in multiple cases in one motion. 10 To the extent Plaintiff wants relief related to a specific case, he may file a motion in each 11 case in which he seeks relief and must specifically identify the relief he seeks related to 12 that case.2 For instance, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief related to confiscated legal 13 materials, he must identify which legal materials were taken, who took them, when they 14 were taken, the reason given for the confiscation, and the reason Plaintiff needs the legal 15 materials.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO MGD 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Edward Lee Jones, Sr., No. CV 18-01972-PHX-MTL (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 GEO Group, et al., 13 Defendants.
14 15 Plaintiff Edward Lee Jones, Sr., who is currently confined in the Arizona State 16 Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Before the Court is a Motion entitled “Plaintiff’s Emergency Motions for Injunction against 18 the Arizona Department of Corrections officials/staff at SMU-1” (Doc. 106), which 19 Plaintiff filed in four pending cases.1 20 The Court will deny the Motion filed in this action. 21 I. Background 22 On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated 23 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and First Amendment free speech 24 and free exercise claims in Counts One through Eight against Defendants Ryan, 25 McWilliams, Lauchner, Slade, Olson, Reese, Miller and Mattson and required those 26 27
28 1 Plaintiff also filed the Motion in CV 19-08055-PCT-MTL (JZB), CV 18-02034- PHX-MTL (JZB), and CV 18-04872-PHX-MTL (JZB). 1 Defendants to answer the claims against them as set forth in the screening Order. (Docs. 2 18, 63.) 3 II. Motion for Injunctive Relief 4 In his “Emergency Motions for Injunction” filed on November 21, 2019, Plaintiff 5 requests an order from the Court ordering Sergeant Harris to “provide all of Plaintiff’s legal 6 boxes/legal books, for ADC to be directed not to take Plaintiff’s legal boxes/legal books, . 7 . . [and] for SMU1 officials to provide Plaintiff with indigent hygiene and access to proper 8 forms to exhaust the grievance process.” (Doc. 106 at 1.) 9 Plaintiff complains that between July 23, 2019 and November 7, 2019, “staff” at 10 Rynning unit provided him “indigent” supplies only four times. (Id.at 2.) Plaintiff asserts 11 that “in the last 12 months,” Sergeant Harris and his subordinates have lost or wrongfully 12 destroyed Plaintiff’s property. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff asserts that despite multiple requests, 13 staff will not return his legal property and as a result he has been unable to respond to 14 motions filed in this case and in CV 18-4872. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff appears to say that he 15 has not been able to respond to Defendant Mattson’s Motion to Dismiss at Doc. 101. (See 16 id.) Plaintiff also states that “[p]risoners are being hindered from the grievance process..” 17 (Id. at 5.) 18 Defendants respond that Plaintiff arrived at ASPC-Eyman-SMU-1 on November 7, 19 2019 and received his property by no later than December 4, 2019. (Doc. 110 at 2.) 20 Plaintiff had 6 legal boxes in his property, but prisoners are only allowed 3 boxes in their 21 living area at any one time, and the excess boxes were placed in storage. (Id.) Plaintiff 22 may request to exchange boxes from his housing area to receive boxes from storage, but 23 Sergeant Harris has not received any written requests from Plaintiff for a legal box 24 exchange. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a reply or respond to Defendants’ assertion that he 25 had not requested to exchange his legal boxes. 26 A. Legal Standard 27 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 28 not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” 1 Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 2 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 3 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 4 never awarded as of right”). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that 5 (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without 6 an injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the 7 public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “But if a plaintiff can only show that there are 8 ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the 9 merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips 10 sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,’ and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell 11 Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance 12 for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under this serious 13 questions variant of the Winter test, “[t]he elements . . . must be balanced, so that a stronger 14 showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Lopez, 680 F.3d at 15 1072. 16 Regardless of which standard applies, the movant “has the burden of proof on each 17 element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 18 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). Further, there is a heightened burden where a plaintiff seeks a 19 mandatory preliminary injunction, which should not be granted “unless the facts and law 20 clearly favor the plaintiff.” Comm. of Cent. Am. Refugees v. INS, 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th 21 Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). 22 The Prison Litigation Reform Act imposes additional requirements on prisoner 23 litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials and requires that 24 any injunctive relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means necessary to correct 25 the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 26 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 27 A court may issue an injunction against a non-party only where the non-party acts 28 in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (a 1 preliminary injunction only binds those who receive actual notice of it by personal service 2 or are parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in 3 active concert); see Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A federal court may 4 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.”); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 7 (1969). 8 B. Discussion 9 As an initial matter, Plaintiff may not seek relief in multiple cases in one motion. 10 To the extent Plaintiff wants relief related to a specific case, he may file a motion in each 11 case in which he seeks relief and must specifically identify the relief he seeks related to 12 that case.2 For instance, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief related to confiscated legal 13 materials, he must identify which legal materials were taken, who took them, when they 14 were taken, the reason given for the confiscation, and the reason Plaintiff needs the legal 15 materials. If Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court in the form of an extension of time to 16 respond to a specific motion, he must file a motion requesting an extension of time to 17 respond and specifically describing the reasons he needs such an extension of time. 18 Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations are unrelated to the underlying claim pending in 19 this action, and as a result, the Court lacks authority to grant Plaintiff the injunctive relief 20 he requests. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Center, 810 F.3d 631, 21 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[w]hen a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in 22 the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction”); see also 23 Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (a party seeking 24 injunctive relief must establish a relationship between the claimed injury and the conduct 25 asserted in the complaint). Likewise, Plaintiff’s allegations do not concern any of the 26 named Defendants and Plaintiff has made no showing that any named Defendant is 27 28 2 If Plaintiff files a motion listing multiple case numbers in the future, the Court will strike the motion without further notice to Plaintiff. 1 | involved in any of the actions that he complains about in his Motion seeking injunctive 2| relief. 3 With regard to his claims that he is being denied access to his legal materials and 4 cannot respond to specific motions, Plaintiff can seek relief related to such claims. See 5 | Prince v. Schriro, et al., CV 08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (unless a claim concerns access to the courts, the Plaintiff must show a nexus 7 | between the relief sought and the claims in the lawsuit). However, Plaintiff has now 8 | responded to Defendant Mattson’s Motion to Dismiss (see Doc. 116), and Plaintiff does not provide any information either in his Motion or in his Response stating that his access 10 | to the court was hindered. Moreover, in a motion filed in case CV 18-08055-PCT-MTL 11 | (JZB), which was filed after Plaintiffs “Motions for Injunction,” Plaintiff stated that he received his legal boxes “containing all his civil cases” on “December 12, 2019.” (Doc. 13 | 26 at 3 in CV 18-08055.) As such, it appears that any relief Plaintiff seeks relating to 14 | access to the courts is moot. 15 For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled 16 | to injunctive relief in this action and his Motion will be denied. 17 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to 18 | Plaintiff's Emergency Motions for Injunction against the Arizona Department of Corrections officials/staff at SMU-1 (Doc. 106), and the Motion is denied. 20 Dated this 15th day of January, 2020. 21 Micha To Siburde Michael T. Liburdi 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28