(PC) Leen v. Montejo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOVIE DEWDROP LEEN, Case No. 2:20-cv-2231-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 13 v. CASE 14 CUEVA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 16 ECF No. 6 17 OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff Dovie Dewdrop Leen is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 23 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint,1 plaintiff also 24 submitted a motion to compel the California Medical Facility (“CMF”) to provide him with 25 indigent envelopes and postage. ECF No. 6. He states that unnamed officials at CMF have 26 denied him the indigent envelopes and postage that he is entitled to, impeding his litigation of two 27 28 1 The court will screen the complaint by separate order. 1 section 1983 lawsuits and preventing him from contacting his family. Id. at 1. Staff has allegedly 2 told him that he does not qualify for the mailing materials because he has ten dollars on his trust 3 account. Id. I construe this as a motion for preliminary injunction and recommend that it be 4 denied without prejudice. 5 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 6 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 7 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. 8 Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 9 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in 10 order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 11 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, the injunctive relief 12 sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC 13 v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A court’s equitable power lies only 14 over the merits of the case or controversy before it. When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based 15 on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). 16 A permanent injunction may be granted only after a final hearing on the merits. See MAI Sys. 17 Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir.1993) (“As a general rule, a permanent 18 injunction will be granted when liability has been established . . . .”). 19 Plaintiff has not addressed the Winter factors in his motion, and it is his burden to show 20 that he meets the requirements for injunctive relief. See Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 21 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (“‘An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion’ and is ‘an 22 extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled 23 to such relief.’”) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 376, 381). Additionally, plaintiff’s claims about 24 indigent envelopes and postage appear to be unrelated to the allegations in the complaint, which 25 concern alleged sexual assault, retaliation for filing lawsuits, and inadequate medical care. ECF 26 No. 1 at 7, 9-12. Accordingly, I may be without authority to issue the injunction that he seeks. 27 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC, 810 F.3d at 633. 28 I am not unsympathetic to plaintiff’s claims, however. Prisoners are entitled to access the 1 | court system. “Under the First Amendment, a prisoner has both a right to meaningful access to 2 | the courts and a broader right to petition the government for a redress of his grievances.” Silva v. 3 | Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Coleman v. 4 | Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 191 L. Ed. 2d 803 (2015). To the extent that his claims are true, the 5 | officials withholding his mailing materials appear to be violating his constitutional rights, and he 6 | may be entitled to redress by filing a separate section 1983 action. I realize that plaintiff's 7 | inability to access postage and envelopes might make difficult the filing of a separate suit. 8 | Regardless, I cannot grant the injunction he seeks. 9 It is ordered that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to rule on these findings 10 | and recommendations. 11 I recommend that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 6), which I construe as a motion 12 | for preliminary injunction, be denied without prejudice. 13 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge assigned 14 | to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 15 | service of these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the 16 | court. Ifa party files objections, that party should do so in a document captioned “Objections to 17 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( q oy — Dated: _ December 1, 2020 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28