Woodville v. ASDD Documents Destruction

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 15, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00021
StatusUnknown

This text of Woodville v. ASDD Documents Destruction (Woodville v. ASDD Documents Destruction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Woodville v. ASDD Documents Destruction, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 NA 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Rodney Woodville, No. CV 21-00021-PHX-DGC (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 ASDD Documents Destruction, 13 Defendant.

14 15 Plaintiff Rodney Woodville, who is confined in the Arizona State Hospital, has filed 16 a pro se document entitled “Petition for Emergency Injunction” (Doc. 1). The Court will 17 dismiss this action without prejudice. 18 I. Petition for Emergency Injunction 19 In his Petition, Plaintiff alleges that “hospital employees” intentionally disposed of 20 “[d]ocuments containing potential evidence of health care violations and other criminal 21 activity.”1 Plaintiff asks the Court to “issue an injunction order that the aforementioned 22 receptacle be seized and held by the Court until federal investigators can be apprised of the 23 24

25 1 Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. § 1518 as the basis for his claim. Section 1518 provides 26 a criminal penalty for any person who “willfully prevents, obstructs, misleads, delays or attempts to prevent, obstruct, mislead, or delay the communication of information or 27 records relating to a violation of a Federal health care offense to a criminal investigator.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1518(a). Section 1518 does not provide a basis for civil liability. See 28 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding statutes that provide for punishment by fine or imprisonment do not create private rights of action, give rise to civil liability, or provide a basis for lawsuits pursuant to the Civil Rights Act) 1 situation and secure the contents of the receptacle.” Plaintiff states the contents of the 2 receptacle will be shredded by Defendant. 3 II. Legal Standard 4 The standards for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order are 5 substantially the same. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 6 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and 7 drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, 8 carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) 9 (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam); see also Winter v. 10 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary 11 injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right”). A plaintiff seeking a 12 preliminary injunction must show that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is 13 likely to suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in 14 his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “But if a 15 plaintiff can only show that there are ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser 16 showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still 17 issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,’ and the other two 18 Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 19 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th 20 Cir. 2011)). Under this serious questions variant of the Winter test, “[t]he elements . . . 21 must be balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing 22 of another.” Lopez, 680 F.3d at 1072. Regardless of which standard applies, the movant 23 “has the burden of proof on each element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. 24 Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 25 Motions for injunctive relief are not independent actions but, rather, a means to seek 26 extraordinary relief in an ongoing action that has been initiated by filing a complaint or 27 other proper petition that alleges jurisdictional facts. Indeed, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules 28 of Civil Procedure, which provides for the granting of preliminary injunctions and 1 temporary restraining orders, “was designed solely as a procedural tool to expedite the 2 action and accommodate the court and the litigants” and “does not confer either subject 3 matter or personal jurisdiction on the court.” Citizens Concerned for the Separation of 4 Church and State v. City and County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1299 (10th Cir. 1980). 5 Before seeking injunctive relief, Plaintiff must first have a Complaint pending before the 6 Court. See Stewart v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 762 F.2d 193, 7 198 (2d Cir. 1985) (“Only after an action has been commenced can preliminary injunctive 8 relief be obtained.”); see also Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per 9 curiam) (a party seeking injunctive relief must establish a relationship between the claimed 10 injury and the conduct asserted in the complaint). 11 III. Discussion 12 Because Plaintiff has not filed a Complaint, his Petition for Emergency Injunction 13 is not properly before the Court. Even if Plaintiff’s Petition had been properly presented, 14 he has not shown that he is entitled to injunctive relief under the standard set forth above. 15 First, Plaintiff’s allegations are too vague to conclude that he is likely to succeed on 16 any constitutional claims. Second, Plaintiff has failed to show that he is likely to suffer 17 irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order. Although Plaintiff states 18 “the healthcare violations that [he] intends to report appear to pose an imminent risk to the 19 welfare of patients at the Arizona State Hospital, he does not allege any facts to suggest 20 that this fear is well-grounded. Even assuming the documents will be permanently 21 disposed of, Plaintiff has not cited any factual support for his conclusion that he personally 22 would be endangered if the contents of the receptacle are shredded. Accordingly, the Court 23 will deny the Petition for Emergency Injunction and direct the Clerk of Court to close this 24 case. 25 Plaintiff is not precluded from filing a motion for an injunction or a temporary 26 restraining order in a new case, so long as he first files a civil rights complaint on a court- 27 approved form and either pays the filing and administrative fees or files a complete 28 Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. The Court will 1) direct the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with the court-approved forms for filing a civil rights Complaint and an Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 4 IT IS ORDERED: 5 (1) ‘Plaintiff's Petition for Emergency Injunction (Doc. 1) is denied without 6| prejudice. The Clerk of Court must close this action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe
616 F.2d 1089 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Samuel Lopez v. Janice Brewer
680 F.3d 1068 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.
709 F.3d 1281 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Mazurek v. Armstrong
520 U.S. 968 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater
184 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. California, 2000)
Devose v. Herrington
42 F.3d 470 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell
632 F.3d 1127 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Woodville v. ASDD Documents Destruction, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodville-v-asdd-documents-destruction-azd-2021.