(PC) Johnson v. Neuschmid ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LACEDRIC WILLIAM JOHNSON, No. 2:19-cv-01598-WBS-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this federal civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s 19 motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 23. Defendants have filed an opposition to the 20 motion. ECF No. 27. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends denying 21 plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to any future request for an extension of time. 22 I. Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 23 In his motion, plaintiff states that he has not been able to access his property including his 24 legal files as a result of his placement in administrative segregation due to the COVID-19 25 outbreak at San Quentin State Prison. ECF No. 23 at 1. Plaintiff also references a pending court 26 deadline for submission of a confidential settlement statement. Id. However, that deadline has 27 been vacated by the court. See ECF No. 22. Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the Litigation 28 Coordinator to return him to North Block housing and to place him on single cell status due to his 1 high risk of infection of COVID-19. Id. at 1-2. 2 By way of opposition, defendants point out that the litigation coordinator at San Quentin 3 State Prison is not a party to this civil action and that plaintiff is not seeking to enjoin any of the 4 named defendants. ECF No. 27 at 3. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any harm or prejudice 5 resulting from his housing placement at San Quentin, according to defendants, because the 6 settlement conference was vacated. Id. 7 II. Legal Standards 8 A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury 9 that would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. “A preliminary 10 injunction... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for preserving the 11 status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment.” Sierra On–Line, Inc. v. 12 Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary injunction represents 13 the exercise of a far-reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. 14 Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “The proper legal standard 15 for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the 16 merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 17 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, 18 Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 19 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (internal quotations omitted). The Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale test 20 for a preliminary injunction has been incorporated into the Supreme Court’s four-part Winter’s 21 standard. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining 22 that the sliding scale approach allowed a stronger showing of one element to offset a weaker 23 showing of another element). “In other words, ‘serious questions going to the merits' and a 24 hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, 25 assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1131-32 26 (citations omitted). Additionally, in cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of 27 confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than 28 necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive 1 means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 2 A motion for preliminary injunction must be supported by “[e]vidence that goes beyond 3 the unverified allegations of the pleadings.” Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Castle, No. C-11- 4 00896-SI, 2011 WL 5882878, *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing 9 Wright & Miller, Federal 5 Practice & Procedure § 2949 (2011)). The plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of 6 establishing the merits of his or her claims. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 7, 20 (2008). 8 III. Analysis 9 Because plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the litigation coordinator at San Quentin who is not a 10 party to this action, the undersigned recommends denying the motion based on lack of 11 jurisdiction. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit 12 pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 13 The defendants in this case are correctional officials at California State Prison-Solano. See ECF 14 No. 8 at 2-3. Additionally, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to suffer irreparable 15 harm in the absence of preliminary relief. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 16 (9th Cir. 2009). If plaintiff does not have access to his legal materials in order to meet a future 17 court deadline, he is advised that he may file a motion for an extension of time. For all these 18 reasons, the undersigned recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 19 order without prejudice to any future request for an extension of time. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion 21 for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 23) be denied without prejudice to plaintiff filing any 22 future request for an extension of time based on lack of access to his legal materials. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the 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, any party may file written 26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 28 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The MASS 2 LUV VEY YOR NEE MUO PIO ee OY IT 1 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || Dated: September 1, 2020 Pee a4 if / /, CAN fu fl. ay 4 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12/john1598.TRO.docx 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28