1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD DEAN YANDELL, No. 2:21-cv-0469 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before this court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 7. For the 21 reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that the motion be denied. 22 I. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 23 A. The Complaint 24 Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Sacramento County Main Jail pending 25 prosecution in Case No. 2:19-cr-00107 KJM, challenges the conditions of his confinement. 26 Plaintiff names eight defendants: Donald Washington, Director of the U.S. Marshal Service; 27 Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones; Sacramento County Jail Commander Brandon Luke; 28 Assistant Commander McKarsie; Supervisors Folena and Schaller; Intelligence Deputy Saika; 1 and the jail chaplain, who is not identified by name. The complaint, filed on March 15, 2021 2 (ECF No. 1) alleges multiple violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 3 The undersigned has screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that 4 none of the allegations state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF No. 8. Accordingly, 5 the complaint has not been served on any defendant. Plaintiff has been granted leave to amend. 6 Id. 7 B. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction 8 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief alleges that around August 2020, “jail 9 staff began to move [him] arbitrarily from cell to cell every 7 to 14 days in a scheme of planned 10 harassment.” ECF No. 7 at 1. The cell moves occur each time that plaintiff is taken for a body 11 scan, which involves his exposure to newly arrived arrestees. Id. at 1-2. He alleges that this has 12 unnecessarily exposed him to potential contraction of COVID-19. See id. Plaintiff further 13 alleges that the cells in which he is being housed are unsanitary and that he is not provided with 14 proper disinfectant. See ECF No. 7 at 2. These allegations mirror those of Claim Five of the 15 complaint, ECF No. 1 at 7, 8. 16 Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining the cell moves and generally directing defendants 17 collectively to respect his rights. He argues that current conditions, if allowed to continue, will 18 create a substantial risk of irreparable harm to him in the form of COVID-19 infection, possibly 19 resulting in complications and/or death. ECF No. 7 at 2. 20 II. APPLICABLE LAW 21 “A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy; it is never awarded as 22 of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citations omitted). When evaluating the 23 merits of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the court considers several factors. Under 24 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), the proper test requires a party 25 to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 26 in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction 27 is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; see Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 28 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter). 1 To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing on the mere 2 possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even viable.” Am. 3 Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); see also 4 Sormans, Inc., 586 F.3d at 1127 (generally acknowledging same). The propriety of a request for 5 injunctive relief hinges on demonstrated and immediate threatened irreparable injury that must be 6 imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674-75 (9th Cir. 7 1988); see also Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Coalition for Economic 8 Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent 9 harm, he must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive 10 relief). In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 11 injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the 12 court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 13 harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 14 A district court may not issue preliminary injunctive relief without primary jurisdiction 15 over the underlying cause of action. See Sires v. State of Washington, 314 F.2d 883, 884 (9th 16 Cir. 1963). Additionally, an injunction against individuals who are not parties to the action is 17 strongly disfavored. See, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 18 (1969). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied for several reasons. First, 21 the complaint has been found not to state a claim for relief, including on the grounds which form 22 the basis for the motion. No defendant has been served. Without a viable complaint that states a 23 cognizable claim, there is no basis for this court to exercise the jurisdiction necessary to provide 24 injunctive relief. See Sires, 314 F.2d at 884. 25 Second, the undersigned specifically found on screening that plaintiff’s allegations do not, 26 even liberally construed, demonstrate that his Fourteenth Amendment rights are being violated by 27 the cell moves. The allegations of unsanitary conditions and increased COVID-19 exposure due 28 to cell moves are entirely conclusory. See ECF No. 1 (complaint) at 7, 8; ECF No. 7 (motion for 1 preliminary injunction) at 1-2. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of 2 success on the merits of Claim Five of his complaint. Injunctive relief is therefore unavailable. 3 See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 4 Third, as the undersigned found on screening, plaintiff’s allegations regarding risk of 5 harm are entirely speculative. The motion for preliminary injunctive relief does not provide 6 additional factual allegations that indicate either unconstitutionally unsafe conditions or a realistic 7 threat of imminent harm. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the likelihood of 8 irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; see also Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 65(b)(A)(1) (movant must provide specific facts clearly showing immediate and 10 irreparable injury, loss or damage will result before adverse party can be heard in opposition).
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD DEAN YANDELL, No. 2:21-cv-0469 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before this court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 7. For the 21 reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that the motion be denied. 22 I. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 23 A. The Complaint 24 Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Sacramento County Main Jail pending 25 prosecution in Case No. 2:19-cr-00107 KJM, challenges the conditions of his confinement. 26 Plaintiff names eight defendants: Donald Washington, Director of the U.S. Marshal Service; 27 Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones; Sacramento County Jail Commander Brandon Luke; 28 Assistant Commander McKarsie; Supervisors Folena and Schaller; Intelligence Deputy Saika; 1 and the jail chaplain, who is not identified by name. The complaint, filed on March 15, 2021 2 (ECF No. 1) alleges multiple violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 3 The undersigned has screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that 4 none of the allegations state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF No. 8. Accordingly, 5 the complaint has not been served on any defendant. Plaintiff has been granted leave to amend. 6 Id. 7 B. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction 8 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief alleges that around August 2020, “jail 9 staff began to move [him] arbitrarily from cell to cell every 7 to 14 days in a scheme of planned 10 harassment.” ECF No. 7 at 1. The cell moves occur each time that plaintiff is taken for a body 11 scan, which involves his exposure to newly arrived arrestees. Id. at 1-2. He alleges that this has 12 unnecessarily exposed him to potential contraction of COVID-19. See id. Plaintiff further 13 alleges that the cells in which he is being housed are unsanitary and that he is not provided with 14 proper disinfectant. See ECF No. 7 at 2. These allegations mirror those of Claim Five of the 15 complaint, ECF No. 1 at 7, 8. 16 Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining the cell moves and generally directing defendants 17 collectively to respect his rights. He argues that current conditions, if allowed to continue, will 18 create a substantial risk of irreparable harm to him in the form of COVID-19 infection, possibly 19 resulting in complications and/or death. ECF No. 7 at 2. 20 II. APPLICABLE LAW 21 “A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy; it is never awarded as 22 of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citations omitted). When evaluating the 23 merits of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the court considers several factors. Under 24 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), the proper test requires a party 25 to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 26 in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction 27 is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; see Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 28 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter). 1 To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing on the mere 2 possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even viable.” Am. 3 Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); see also 4 Sormans, Inc., 586 F.3d at 1127 (generally acknowledging same). The propriety of a request for 5 injunctive relief hinges on demonstrated and immediate threatened irreparable injury that must be 6 imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674-75 (9th Cir. 7 1988); see also Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Coalition for Economic 8 Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent 9 harm, he must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive 10 relief). In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 11 injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the 12 court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 13 harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 14 A district court may not issue preliminary injunctive relief without primary jurisdiction 15 over the underlying cause of action. See Sires v. State of Washington, 314 F.2d 883, 884 (9th 16 Cir. 1963). Additionally, an injunction against individuals who are not parties to the action is 17 strongly disfavored. See, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 18 (1969). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied for several reasons. First, 21 the complaint has been found not to state a claim for relief, including on the grounds which form 22 the basis for the motion. No defendant has been served. Without a viable complaint that states a 23 cognizable claim, there is no basis for this court to exercise the jurisdiction necessary to provide 24 injunctive relief. See Sires, 314 F.2d at 884. 25 Second, the undersigned specifically found on screening that plaintiff’s allegations do not, 26 even liberally construed, demonstrate that his Fourteenth Amendment rights are being violated by 27 the cell moves. The allegations of unsanitary conditions and increased COVID-19 exposure due 28 to cell moves are entirely conclusory. See ECF No. 1 (complaint) at 7, 8; ECF No. 7 (motion for 1 preliminary injunction) at 1-2. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of 2 success on the merits of Claim Five of his complaint. Injunctive relief is therefore unavailable. 3 See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 4 Third, as the undersigned found on screening, plaintiff’s allegations regarding risk of 5 harm are entirely speculative. The motion for preliminary injunctive relief does not provide 6 additional factual allegations that indicate either unconstitutionally unsafe conditions or a realistic 7 threat of imminent harm. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the likelihood of 8 irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; see also Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 65(b)(A)(1) (movant must provide specific facts clearly showing immediate and 10 irreparable injury, loss or damage will result before adverse party can be heard in opposition). 11 The court has no illusions about the seriousness of COVID-19, but plaintiff has not presented 12 facts demonstrating that the cell moves and unspecified unsanitary conditions make it likely that 13 he will contract the virus and consequently suffer irreparable harm. Indeed, plaintiff himself 14 describes his risk of contracting COVID as “potential.” ECF No. 7 at 2. Speculative injury does 15 not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant issuance of preliminary injunction. 16 Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., 844 F.2d at 674. 17 CONCLUSION 18 For all these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 20 District Court Judge to this action. 21 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 22 (ECF No. 7) be DENIED. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 27 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 28 //// 1] || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || DATED: May 12, 2021 ~ 4 ttt0n— ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28