(PC) Ernst v. Ramos

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT KEITH ERNST, No. 2:21-cv-0813 DAD AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DAVID FRANCES RAMOS, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for an extension of time to 18 respond to discovery requests and another motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary 19 injunction. ECF Nos. 82, 83. 20 Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to defendant Miraflor’s requests for 21 discovery. ECF No. 82. In the motion, plaintiff states that on November 22, 2024, he received a 22 letter from Kathryne Baldwin, defendant Miraflor’s attorney, asking about discovery requests she 23 sent on September 23, 2024. Id. at 1. However, plaintiff never received the requests, and the 24 letter from Baldwin was processed as regular mail instead of legal mail and did not have 25 plaintiff’s correct address. Id. He asserts that the mailroom is continuing to harass him by 26 denying and delaying his mail and requests ninety days to “address this mailroom situation.” Id. 27 at 2-3. The motion for an extension of time asks the court to reconsider his request for a 28 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and is accompanied by another motion for 1 a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction which seeks to enjoin mailroom staff from 2 interfering with plaintiff’s mail. ECF No. 82 at 3; ECF No. 83. Plaintiff’s motion for an 3 extension of time will be granted to the extent he will be given additional time to submit 4 responses to defendant Miraflor’s discovery requests if he has not done so already.1 The motion 5 will otherwise be denied, and for the reasons set forth below, it will be recommended that the 6 motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be denied. 7 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [(1)] that he is likely to 8 succeed on the merits, [(2)] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 9 preliminary relief, [(3)] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [(4)] that an injunction is 10 in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations 11 omitted). The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for 12 issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 13 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary 14 injunctions is “substantially identical”). 15 Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time and for a temporary restraining order or 16 preliminary injunction largely repeat the allegations of his prior motion for a temporary 17 restraining order or preliminary injunction and his objections to the recommendation that that 18 motion be denied. Compare ECF Nos. 67, 75 with ECF Nos. 82, 83. The only new allegation is 19 plaintiff’s assertion that he has experienced irreparable damage because the fact that he did not 20 receive the discovery requests Baldwin sent means that they must have been delivered to some 21 other inmate, putting his life in danger. ECF No. 82 at 4; ECF No. 83 at 2, 9-10. However, 22 plaintiff’s claim of irreparable damage is based solely on speculation, and he provides no 23 evidence to show his mail was given to another inmate. As the undersigned found in 24 recommending denial of plaintiff’s previous motion, the mailroom at the prison has confirmed 25 that going forward, plaintiff will not be required to exchange indigent envelopes in order to mail 26 documents to the non-Attorney General’s Office counsel in this case as long as he complies with 27 1 Defendant Miraflor filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 80), which she has since withdrawn 28 (ECF No. 85), indicating that plaintiff may have already served his responses. 1 || the other requirements for submitting confidential mail. ECF No. 74 at 2 (citing ECF No. 70 at 2 | 4). Plaintiff has provided no evidence that he has complied with the requirement that he 3 || specifically identify the counsel that any additional envelopes are being requested for when he 4 | puts in his requests. For these reasons, and those set forth in the September 18, 2024 findings in 5 || recommendations, which are adopted herein by reference, it will be recommended that the motion 6 || for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction be denied. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 8 | (ECF No. 82) is GRANTED in part. The motion is granted to the extent plaintiff shall have thirty 9 || days from the service of this order to respond to defendant Miraflor’s discovery requests, if he has 10 | not done so already. The motion is otherwise DENIED. 11 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining 12 | order or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 83) be DENIED. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 15 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 18 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 19 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 20 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 || DATED: January 13, 2025 ~ 22 Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28