1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL, Case No. 1:24-cv-00522-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION 14 CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ORDER CONSTRUING REQUESTS FOR & REHABILITATION, et al., STAY AS MOTIONS AND DENYING 15 MOTIONS FOR STAY AS MOOT Defendants. (ECF Nos. 6, 7) 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 17 DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 18 (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9) 19 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff John Edward Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 22 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated in the Sacramento 23 Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 12, 24 2023. (ECF No. 1.) The case was transferred to the Fresno Division on May 2, 2024. (ECF No. 25 10.) Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. 26 Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s requests for stay of this action, (ECF Nos. 6, 7), 27 and motions for preliminary injunctive relief, (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9.) 28 /// 1 I. Requests for Stay 2 On January 19, 2024 and February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed requests to stay this action while 3 he sought representation by counsel in this action and his other pending litigation. (ECF Nos. 5, 4 6.) Plaintiff requested a stay of ninety days to obtain counsel. (ECF No. 6.) These requests are 5 construed as motions to stay this action. 6 As ninety days has already expired from the filing of his first request, Plaintiff’s motions 7 to stay are denied as moot. Plaintiff is reminded that if he obtains legal representation, counsel 8 may file a notice of appearance at any time. 9 II. Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 10 In his motions for injunctive relief, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction against 11 Defendants Macomber and Broomfield (or, the Secretary and Director of CDCR), and extending 12 to their successors in office, agents, employees, and all other persons acting in concert and/or 13 participation with them, directing them to take a variety of actions, including: to not use excessive 14 or unnecessary force against Plaintiff and to video record all necessary uses of force; to not 15 expose Plaintiff to officer misconduct that would trigger his PTSD symptoms; remove all CDC 16 128 informational chronos that have no signature indicating Plaintiff received a copy of that 17 chrono; remove any and all RVRs that were reduced to “counseling chronos;” to not expose 18 Plaintiff to misuse of force incidents that could exacerbate his PTSD; to not house Plaintiff at any 19 California State Prisons that employs an officer named in any prior or pending lawsuit by 20 Plaintiff, or employs any other persons connected to them through familial relations; give 21 Plaintiff single cell status due to his PTSD attributed in part to cellmates; provide Plaintiff with 22 mental health treatment for PTSD; stop C/O Ramos from attempting to coax Plaintiff into a fight 23 and using discriminatory racist words; stop C/O Lomas from further violating HIPAA by 24 divulging Plaintiff’s medical information to another person and to refrain from retaliatory acts; 25 stop Warden Covello from failing to protect Plaintiff’s rights to receive medication from a nurse 26 in view of a camera and to shut down dispensing medications from a room without cameras; stop 27 Nurse P. Omuruviti from not giving Plaintiff his medications at 6:00 and/or 8:00 p.m.; and stop 28 MCSP officers from housing another inmate in a cell with Plaintiff until determined by a 1 psychologist that Plaintiff’s PTSD diagnosis would not be exacerbated by the proposed cellmate. 2 (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9.) 3 In support of these requests, Plaintiff sets forth a list of events beginning in 2008 and 4 continuing to the present, which he alleges demonstrate the continuing risk of retaliation from 5 correctional staff in response to his filing of grievances and civil complaints. Plaintiff alleges that 6 he is at risk of a litany of retaliation, including physical assault, false rules violation reports, 7 withholding his mail, violations of his religious rights, and other various unconstitutional 8 conditions of confinement. The prior alleged incidents and the future harms Plaintiff alleges are 9 certain and are happening are not limited to his current institution or the defendants named in the 10 instant action. (Id.) 11 A. Legal Standards 12 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 13 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 14 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 15 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 16 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 17 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 18 omitted). 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 20 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 21 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 22 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 23 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 24 power to hear the matter in question. Id. There must also be a relationship between the injury 25 claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint, 26 such that the preliminary injunction would grant “relief of the same character as that which may 27 be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). Requests for prospective 28 relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 1 requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than 2 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 3 correct the violation of the Federal right.” 4 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 5 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 6 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 7 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 8 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 9 B. Discussion 10 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks. The Court is 11 required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 12 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
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 JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL, Case No. 1:24-cv-00522-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION 14 CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ORDER CONSTRUING REQUESTS FOR & REHABILITATION, et al., STAY AS MOTIONS AND DENYING 15 MOTIONS FOR STAY AS MOOT Defendants. (ECF Nos. 6, 7) 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 17 DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 18 (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9) 19 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff John Edward Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 22 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated in the Sacramento 23 Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 12, 24 2023. (ECF No. 1.) The case was transferred to the Fresno Division on May 2, 2024. (ECF No. 25 10.) Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. 26 Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s requests for stay of this action, (ECF Nos. 6, 7), 27 and motions for preliminary injunctive relief, (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9.) 28 /// 1 I. Requests for Stay 2 On January 19, 2024 and February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed requests to stay this action while 3 he sought representation by counsel in this action and his other pending litigation. (ECF Nos. 5, 4 6.) Plaintiff requested a stay of ninety days to obtain counsel. (ECF No. 6.) These requests are 5 construed as motions to stay this action. 6 As ninety days has already expired from the filing of his first request, Plaintiff’s motions 7 to stay are denied as moot. Plaintiff is reminded that if he obtains legal representation, counsel 8 may file a notice of appearance at any time. 9 II. Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 10 In his motions for injunctive relief, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction against 11 Defendants Macomber and Broomfield (or, the Secretary and Director of CDCR), and extending 12 to their successors in office, agents, employees, and all other persons acting in concert and/or 13 participation with them, directing them to take a variety of actions, including: to not use excessive 14 or unnecessary force against Plaintiff and to video record all necessary uses of force; to not 15 expose Plaintiff to officer misconduct that would trigger his PTSD symptoms; remove all CDC 16 128 informational chronos that have no signature indicating Plaintiff received a copy of that 17 chrono; remove any and all RVRs that were reduced to “counseling chronos;” to not expose 18 Plaintiff to misuse of force incidents that could exacerbate his PTSD; to not house Plaintiff at any 19 California State Prisons that employs an officer named in any prior or pending lawsuit by 20 Plaintiff, or employs any other persons connected to them through familial relations; give 21 Plaintiff single cell status due to his PTSD attributed in part to cellmates; provide Plaintiff with 22 mental health treatment for PTSD; stop C/O Ramos from attempting to coax Plaintiff into a fight 23 and using discriminatory racist words; stop C/O Lomas from further violating HIPAA by 24 divulging Plaintiff’s medical information to another person and to refrain from retaliatory acts; 25 stop Warden Covello from failing to protect Plaintiff’s rights to receive medication from a nurse 26 in view of a camera and to shut down dispensing medications from a room without cameras; stop 27 Nurse P. Omuruviti from not giving Plaintiff his medications at 6:00 and/or 8:00 p.m.; and stop 28 MCSP officers from housing another inmate in a cell with Plaintiff until determined by a 1 psychologist that Plaintiff’s PTSD diagnosis would not be exacerbated by the proposed cellmate. 2 (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9.) 3 In support of these requests, Plaintiff sets forth a list of events beginning in 2008 and 4 continuing to the present, which he alleges demonstrate the continuing risk of retaliation from 5 correctional staff in response to his filing of grievances and civil complaints. Plaintiff alleges that 6 he is at risk of a litany of retaliation, including physical assault, false rules violation reports, 7 withholding his mail, violations of his religious rights, and other various unconstitutional 8 conditions of confinement. The prior alleged incidents and the future harms Plaintiff alleges are 9 certain and are happening are not limited to his current institution or the defendants named in the 10 instant action. (Id.) 11 A. Legal Standards 12 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 13 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 14 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 15 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 16 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 17 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 18 omitted). 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 20 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 21 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 22 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 23 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 24 power to hear the matter in question. Id. There must also be a relationship between the injury 25 claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint, 26 such that the preliminary injunction would grant “relief of the same character as that which may 27 be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). Requests for prospective 28 relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 1 requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than 2 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 3 correct the violation of the Federal right.” 4 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 5 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 6 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 7 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 8 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 9 B. Discussion 10 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks. The Court is 11 required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 12 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or 13 any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim 14 upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 15 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 16 As Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has 17 shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, no defendant has been ordered served, 18 and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal 19 jurisdiction over any staff or employees at Plaintiff’s current institution or any other CDCR 20 institution, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take, or forbid them from taking, any 21 action. 22 Further, Plaintiff’s motion makes no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the 23 absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in 24 the public interest. Plaintiff also has not shown that the broad relief sought, such as preventing 25 any correctional staff from any institution from performing any act that might trigger Plaintiff’s 26 PTSD, or the specific relief sought, such as preventing certain non-party individuals from taking 27 actions that might violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, has any relationship to the underlying 28 claims in presented in the complaint. 1 To the extent Plaintiff believes he is in danger, he has other avenues of relief available to 2 him, including filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. E.g., People v. Brewer, 3 235 Cal. App. 4th 122, 138, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104, 114 (2015) (a California trial court may grant 4 habeas corpus petitioners prospective relief to redress recurring, persistent deprivations of 5 prisoners’ rights at correctional facilities). The issue is not that Plaintiff’s allegations are not 6 serious or that he is not entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum. The issue is that this 7 action cannot be used by Plaintiff obtain the relief he seeks. The seriousness of Plaintiff’s 8 allegations concerning feared impending harm cannot and do not overcome what is a 9 jurisdictional bar. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103–04 (1998) 10 (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s 11 case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 12 establishing its existence.”) 13 Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. 14 III. Order and Recommendation 15 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 16 1. Plaintiff’s requests for stay, (ECF Nos. 6, 7), are CONSTRUED as motions to stay this 17 action; 18 2. Plaintiff’s motions to stay this action, (ECF Nos. 6, 7), are DENIED as moot; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 20 * * * 21 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary 22 injunctive relief, (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9), be DENIED. 23 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 25 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 26 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 27 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 28 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 1 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 2 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4
5 Dated: May 3, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28