(PC) Quair v. Robinson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMMY R. QUAIR, SR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01214-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF RE: THE KINGS COUNTY JAIL MENTAL 14 DAVE ROBINSON, et al., HEALTH OFFICE BE DENIED 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 (ECF No. 10) 17 Plaintiff Sammy R. Quair, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee1 proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On October 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion which, among other things, requested an 20 order directing the Kings County Jail mental health office to bring him in for an evaluation. (ECF 21 No. 10 at 4; see also ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff explains that he is suffering from depression and is 22 seeing the mental health office for medication but it is not working. (ECF No. 10 at 3.) Plaintiff 23 puts in slips with the mental health office and receives nothing in response. (Id. at 5.) 24 The Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for injunctive relief. For the following 25 reasons, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s request be denied. 26 /// 27 1 Plaintiff’s complaint does not state if he is a pretrial detainee or sentenced prisoner. Given that Plaintiff is 28 incarcerated at Kings County Jail, the Court assumes that Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 2 A federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal 3 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., 4 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party 5 officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to 6 defend.”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., 7 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 8 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive 9 relief must be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” 11 their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active 12 concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive 13 relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 14 injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 15 2015). 16 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 17 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find that the “relief [sought] is 18 narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, 19 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” 20 On the merits, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is 21 likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 22 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 23 public interest.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that 24 irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance 25 for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring the Kings County Jail mental health office to 3 bring him in for another mental health evaluation is unrelated to this case. The Court’s screening 4 order found that Plaintiff has stated a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in 5 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Dave Robinson and Does 1 through 10 6 for screening purposes, but that Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims. (See ECF No. 7 9.) None of the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint relate to the Kings County Jail mental health 8 office’s treatment or failure to respond to his requests for treatment. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is 9 not entitled to an injunction in this action based on his allegations that are unrelated to his 10 underlying claim(s). Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 633 (“When a plaintiff seeks 11 injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority 12 to issue an injunction.”). If Plaintiff believes his civil rights have been violated, he should file a 13 separate action. 14 Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be 15 denied. 16 I. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 17 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s 18 request for an order directing the Kings County Jail mental health office to evaluate him (ECF 19 No. 10), construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be DENIED. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States District 2 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days 3 | after service of the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 4 | Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 | Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the 6 | Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to 7 | file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 8 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 9 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | Dated: _November 5, 2021 [sf ey 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28