(PC) Rodriguez v. Diaz ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE RODRIGUEZ, No. 1:19-cv-01118-JDP 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED, 14 DIAZ, et al., AND THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 1 and 3 16 OBJECTIONS OR AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 18 ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 21 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 15, 2019, Rodriguez filed a complaint 22 alleging that a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation policy to merge the 23 general and special-needs populations at Avenal State Prison placed him at risk of violence. See 24 ECF No. 1. The same day, Rodriguez filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and 25 preliminary injunction to halt the policy. ECF No. 2. 26 I recommend denying Rodriguez’s motion for a temporary restraining order and 27 dismissing his complaint without prejudice, if Rodriguez fails to file an amended complaint that 28 corrects the numerous pleading deficiencies. Rodriguez’s motion for an injunction does not meet 1 the standard to grant this extraordinary form of relief. Indeed, the motion appears copied from 2 near-identical motions that have recently been filed in other cases—motions that have been 3 denied. See, e.g., Perez v. Diaz, No. 19-1295, 2019 WL 3229622, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2019); 4 Montalvo v. Diaz, No. 19-00363, 2019 WL 1242445, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019). 5 Rodriguez’s complaint, meanwhile, contains no specific or plausible theory for how a merger 6 policy at a different prison from the one in which he is now housed deprives him of rights. His 7 complaint also appears largely identical to ones that have been filed in similar cases, and 8 dismissal has been recommended in at least one such case. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 1 and 8 in Perez, 9 No. 19-1295. Because other recent orders and recommendations and have dealt with these near- 10 identical, boilerplate claims, an exhaustive re-treatment of these issues would not be an efficient 11 use of judicial resources. The federal rules contain mechanisms for collective litigation precisely 12 to avoid the inefficiencies that attend to piecemeal litigation of identical claims. 13 DISCUSSION 14 A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order “must establish 15 that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 16 of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 17 public interest.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S.Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (internal citations and 18 quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff does not meet this standard. Plaintiff’s motion and 19 supporting declarations contain only broad allegations that merging special-needs and general 20 populations will lead to a general increase in violence. These predictions may have policy merit, 21 but they fail to establish that plaintiff “currently faces the type of immediate and credible threat of 22 irreparable harm necessary to justify extraordinary injunctive relief at this stage of the case.” 23 Montalvo, 2019 WL 1242445, at *6. 24 Plaintiff’s complaint contains similar defects. Plaintiff currently appears to be housed at 25 the Pleasant Valley State Prison, see ECF No. 1 at 1, but the complaint concerns a merger policy 26 at Avenal State Prison, see id. at 3. Even if Rodriguez were housed at Avenal, the complaint does 27 not explain how the merger policy would affect him personally.1 The allegations concern a 28 1 1 policy “scheduled” to take place in January 2019, but Rodriguez’s complaint was not filed until 2 August 2019, leaving the state of the controversy ambiguous at best. And Rodriguez’s lone, 3 boilerplate paragraph of supporting facts contains no theory or details that otherwise plausibly 4 link the actions of defendants to a violation of his rights. 5 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 7 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). If the allegations “do not permit the 8 court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. 9 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). And, while a court must construe a pro se litigant’s 10 complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a court may dismiss a pro se 11 litigant’s complaint “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 12 support of her claim which would entitle him to relief,” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 13 1208 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)). Here, it is 14 beyond doubt that Rodriguez’s complaint does not contain allegations that would entitle him to 15 relief. 16 RECOMMENDATION 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), all parties named in a civil action must consent to a 18 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction before that jurisdiction vests for “dispositive decisions.” Williams 19 v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). Here, any dismissal of a claim or ruling on a motion 20 for injunctive relief requires an order from a district judge. Thus, I submit the following findings 21 and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l): 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should 23 be denied. 24 2. Plaintiff’s remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice. 25 Within thirty days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 26 written objections with the court or an amended complaint that attempts to correct the pleading 27 deficiencies. If plaintiff files objections, he should do so in a document captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 1 ORDER 2 The clerk of court is ordered to assign this case to a district judge for review. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° p : —N prssann — Dated: _ September 25, 2019 6 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 No. 205 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28