(PC) Cato v. Denning ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES CATO, JR., No. 1:19-cv-00951-NONE-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT 14 M. DENNING, et al., (Doc. Nos. 28, 31) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff James Cato, Jr., an inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this 19 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several state correctional officers for violating his First 20 Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff now moves to hold defendants in civil contempt for 21 violating a permanent injunction issued in Clement v. California Dep’t of Corr., 220 F. Supp. 2d 22 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2002), which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Clement v. California Dep’t of 23 Corr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 24 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On April 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge found that defendants did not violate the 26 permanent injunction and recommended that plaintiff’s motion for civil contempt be denied. 27 (Doc. No. 31.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 28 notice that objections were due within twenty-one days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 1 30, 2020, and defendants filed a response on May 4, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 32, 33.) Pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of the case and will adopt the 3 findings and recommendations in full. 4 The permanent injunction at issue enjoined the California Department of Corrections and 5 Rehabilitation (CDCR) “from enforcing any policy prohibiting California inmates from receiving 6 mail that contains Internet-generated information.” Clement, 220 F. Supp. 2d at 1116. Because 7 an injunction must be “narrowly drawn” and “the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 8 violation of the Federal right,” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128–29 (9th Cir. 2001), the 9 district court issuing the injunction in Clement emphasized that CDCR was only being enjoined 10 “from enforcing a policy of rejecting prisoner mail based solely on the fact that the mail contains 11 information downloaded from the Internet,” Clement, 220 F. Supp. 2d at 1115 (emphasis added). 12 Plaintiff claims that defendants violated the permanent injunction by confiscating 30 photographs 13 that he ordered from the internet. (Doc. Nos. 28 at 2-3; 31 at 3.) The pending findings and 14 recommendations note that not only were the photographs in question confiscated due to their 15 obscenity, they may also constitute contraband because they contain information that can be used 16 to obtain obscene materials. (Doc. No. 31 at 3.) Because plaintiff’s photographs were 17 confiscated as obscenity or as contraband, the findings and recommendations concluded that their 18 confiscation was not based “solely” on the fact that they were obtained from the internet and, 19 therefore, not a violation of the permanent injunction issued in Clement. (Id. at 3-4.) 20 In his objections, plaintiff disputes that the photographs were obscene, without explaining 21 what they are or why they are not obscene, and contends that the injunction in Clement bars “any” 22 information obtained from the internet from being confiscated by CDCR. (Doc. No. 32 at 1-2.) 23 In addition to the lack of evidence supporting plaintiff’s position, he also misreads the scope of 24 the permanent injunction issued in Clement. As noted, that injunction does not prohibit the 25 confiscation of just “any” material from the internet; rather, it prohibits the CDCR from 26 implementing any policy that would confiscate a material “solely” because it “contains 27 information downloaded from the Internet.” Clement, 220 F.Supp.2d at 1115. In other words, 28 under the injunction in Clement, plaintiff’s photographs could be confiscated even though they wOoOe 4:40 VV YY EIN SPA MMU OIC Ie AY VMI 1 | were obtained from the internet because they were also obscene or constituted contraband. For 2 | these reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to justify his request for civil contempt by 3 | “clear and convincing evidence.” United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2010). 4 | Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the 5 | pending findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1.) The April 16, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 31) are adopted in full; and 8 2.) Plaintiff's motion for civil contempt (Doc. No. 28) is denied. ? | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 8 Dated: _ June 8, 2020 Ya AL ae 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28