1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-HBK
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 13 v. EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION1
14 I.Z. JONES, et al., (Doc. No. 11)
15 Defendants. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
16 ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 17
19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction filed on September 30, 20 2021. (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting correctional officials 21 from retailing against him both during and following this matter’s pendency. (Id. at 2, “Motion”). 22 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff Thomas K. Mills (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, initiated this action on August 6, 25 2021 by filing a pro se, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force while housed at 26 Kern Valley State Prison. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding on his first amended complaint 27
1 1 filed September 27, 2021, in which he names two defendants: Z. Jones and J. Rivera, both 2 correctional officers at Kern Valley State Prison. (Doc. No. 7, “FAC”). The FAC alleges 3 excessive use of force in violation of the Eight Amendment stemming from an undated incident 4 during which Plaintiff, while handcuffed, was pushed to the ground, punched in the face, and 5 slapped in the face several times by both defendants. (Id. at 3). As relief, Plaintiff seeks 6 compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 6). 7 In his Motion sub judice, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin “the California 8 Department of Corrections” from retaliating against him “during the case, and after the case is 9 over.” (Doc. No. 11 at 2). The Motion also describes Plaintiff’s adverse reaction after 10 simultaneously being described the drugs Zoloft, Abilify and Fluoxetine, and his belief they 11 contributed to the underlying incident where Plaintiff alleges excessive force. (Id. at 2-3). 12 Plaintiff makes no mention of these drugs in his FAC and the Motion does not request any relief 13 concerning these drugs. (Id.; Doc. No. 7). 14 II. APPLICABLE LAW 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs preliminary injunctions and limits their 16 issuance to where “notice to the adverse party” has been given. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Local 17 Rule 231(d) also mandates notice and requires that all preliminary injunction motions include (1) 18 briefing on all legal issues implicated by the motion, (2) affidavits supporting the motion, 19 including affidavits addressing irreparable harm, and (3) a proposed order which includes a 20 provision for a bond. 21 A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy” and may be issued only if plaintiff 22 establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the 23 absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his/her favor; (4) that an 24 injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 25 Plaintiff bears the burden of clearly satisfying all four prongs. Alliance for the Wild 26 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). A preliminary injunction will not issue 27 if plaintiff merely shows irreparable harm is possible – a showing of likelihood is required. Id. at 1 The injunctive relief an applicant requests must relate to the claims brought in the 2 complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 3 2015) (“When a Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 4 court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Absent a nexus between the injury 5 claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the Court lacks the authority to grant 6 Plaintiff any relief. Id. at 636. 7 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 8 litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 9 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 10 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 11 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Villery v. California Dep't of Corr., 12 2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the PLRA 13 places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, 14 and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the 15 bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that 16 binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 17 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). The court’s jurisdiction is “limited 18 to the parties in this action” and the pendency of an action “does not give the Court jurisdiction 19 over prison officials in general or over the conditions of an inmate's confinement unrelated to the 20 claims before it.” Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020). 21 Finally, state governments have “traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the 22 dispatch of [their] own internal affairs.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423, U.S. 362, 378 (1976) (citations 23 omitted). This deference applies even more strongly when the court is asked to involve itself in 24 the administrative decisions of a prison. See Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987); Sandin v. 25 Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995). 26 III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 27 The undersigned finds Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden to justify issuance by this 1 Rule 231(d). There is no showing of actual or attempted notice, and other than requesting the 2 relief, Plaintiff fails to provide any briefing on the implicated legal issues, provide any affidavits 3 attesting to imminent irreparable harm, or include a proposed order that includes a provision for 4 bond. 5 Further, the relief Plaintiff seeks in the Motion does not relate to the claims brought in the 6 FAC. See Pac. Radiation Oncology., 810 F.3d at 633. Specifically, the claims set forth in the 7 FAC pertain the alleged excessive use of force by the two named Defendants. Indeed, the Motion 8 makes no mention of the underlying FAC other than to imply his prescription drug dosage may 9 have contributed to his behavior that day. Because the relief Plaintiff seeks in his Motion is 10 wholly unrelated to the claims and the relief sought in the FAC, the Court cannot grant him 11 injunctive relief. Id. 12 Moreover, the other Winter factors weigh against Plaintiff. Plaintiff has made no showing 13 he would suffer irreparable harm because he fails to detail what retaliation he fears will occur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-HBK
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 13 v. EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION1
14 I.Z. JONES, et al., (Doc. No. 11)
15 Defendants. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
16 ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 17
19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction filed on September 30, 20 2021. (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting correctional officials 21 from retailing against him both during and following this matter’s pendency. (Id. at 2, “Motion”). 22 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff Thomas K. Mills (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, initiated this action on August 6, 25 2021 by filing a pro se, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force while housed at 26 Kern Valley State Prison. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding on his first amended complaint 27
1 1 filed September 27, 2021, in which he names two defendants: Z. Jones and J. Rivera, both 2 correctional officers at Kern Valley State Prison. (Doc. No. 7, “FAC”). The FAC alleges 3 excessive use of force in violation of the Eight Amendment stemming from an undated incident 4 during which Plaintiff, while handcuffed, was pushed to the ground, punched in the face, and 5 slapped in the face several times by both defendants. (Id. at 3). As relief, Plaintiff seeks 6 compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 6). 7 In his Motion sub judice, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin “the California 8 Department of Corrections” from retaliating against him “during the case, and after the case is 9 over.” (Doc. No. 11 at 2). The Motion also describes Plaintiff’s adverse reaction after 10 simultaneously being described the drugs Zoloft, Abilify and Fluoxetine, and his belief they 11 contributed to the underlying incident where Plaintiff alleges excessive force. (Id. at 2-3). 12 Plaintiff makes no mention of these drugs in his FAC and the Motion does not request any relief 13 concerning these drugs. (Id.; Doc. No. 7). 14 II. APPLICABLE LAW 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs preliminary injunctions and limits their 16 issuance to where “notice to the adverse party” has been given. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Local 17 Rule 231(d) also mandates notice and requires that all preliminary injunction motions include (1) 18 briefing on all legal issues implicated by the motion, (2) affidavits supporting the motion, 19 including affidavits addressing irreparable harm, and (3) a proposed order which includes a 20 provision for a bond. 21 A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy” and may be issued only if plaintiff 22 establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the 23 absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his/her favor; (4) that an 24 injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 25 Plaintiff bears the burden of clearly satisfying all four prongs. Alliance for the Wild 26 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). A preliminary injunction will not issue 27 if plaintiff merely shows irreparable harm is possible – a showing of likelihood is required. Id. at 1 The injunctive relief an applicant requests must relate to the claims brought in the 2 complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 3 2015) (“When a Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 4 court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Absent a nexus between the injury 5 claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the Court lacks the authority to grant 6 Plaintiff any relief. Id. at 636. 7 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 8 litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 9 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 10 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 11 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Villery v. California Dep't of Corr., 12 2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the PLRA 13 places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, 14 and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the 15 bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that 16 binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 17 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). The court’s jurisdiction is “limited 18 to the parties in this action” and the pendency of an action “does not give the Court jurisdiction 19 over prison officials in general or over the conditions of an inmate's confinement unrelated to the 20 claims before it.” Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020). 21 Finally, state governments have “traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the 22 dispatch of [their] own internal affairs.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423, U.S. 362, 378 (1976) (citations 23 omitted). This deference applies even more strongly when the court is asked to involve itself in 24 the administrative decisions of a prison. See Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987); Sandin v. 25 Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995). 26 III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 27 The undersigned finds Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden to justify issuance by this 1 Rule 231(d). There is no showing of actual or attempted notice, and other than requesting the 2 relief, Plaintiff fails to provide any briefing on the implicated legal issues, provide any affidavits 3 attesting to imminent irreparable harm, or include a proposed order that includes a provision for 4 bond. 5 Further, the relief Plaintiff seeks in the Motion does not relate to the claims brought in the 6 FAC. See Pac. Radiation Oncology., 810 F.3d at 633. Specifically, the claims set forth in the 7 FAC pertain the alleged excessive use of force by the two named Defendants. Indeed, the Motion 8 makes no mention of the underlying FAC other than to imply his prescription drug dosage may 9 have contributed to his behavior that day. Because the relief Plaintiff seeks in his Motion is 10 wholly unrelated to the claims and the relief sought in the FAC, the Court cannot grant him 11 injunctive relief. Id. 12 Moreover, the other Winter factors weigh against Plaintiff. Plaintiff has made no showing 13 he would suffer irreparable harm because he fails to detail what retaliation he fears will occur. 14 Plaintiff vaguely seeks to prohibit retaliation by the “California Department of Corrections” but 15 does he does not identify which individuals he has reason to believe will retaliate against him or 16 what form of retaliation is reasonably likely to occur. The undersigned further notes that Plaintiff 17 is no longer housed at Kern Valley Prison, where the alleged acts occurred. Instead, he is also 18 presently housed at San Question State Prison and thus does not interact with the named 19 Defendants who work at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff also wholly fails to address whether 20 the balance of equities and the public interest favor granting injunctive relief. Finally, the Court 21 lacks jurisdiction over Defendants because they have yet to be served. See Zepeda v. U.S. 22 Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an 23 injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 24 claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 25 The undersigned finds this is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting the issuance of 26 a preliminary injunction and recommends Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. 27 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1 It is further RECOMMENDED: 2 Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 11) be DENIED. 3 NOTICE TO PARTIES 4 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 5 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 6 | (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 7 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 9 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 10 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 Dated: _ October 4, 2021 Wiha Th fares Zack 13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28