(PC) Springfield v. Axlex ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, No. 2:21-cv-0336 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 D. AXLEX, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s complaint raising First and 19 Eighth Amendment alleged violations by defendants Valencia, Barrow, and Cannizzaro at 20 California Medical Facility (“CMF”), and defendants Axlex, Hobbs, Cook, Laughlin, Azuari, 21 Peters and Cassesi at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”), all of which took place in 2020. (ECF 22 No. 1.) Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order is before the court. As discussed 23 below, the undersigned recommends that the motion be denied. 24 Plaintiff’s Motion 25 Plaintiff claims that in March of 2021, while housed at California Health Care Facility 26 (“CHCF”) in Stockton, plaintiff’s property was intentionally confiscated and destroyed, allegedly 27 to silence his PREA claim. Plaintiff requests the court issue a temporary restraining order that is 28 narrowly drawn to compel the CDCR to: (1) cease all methods and or forms of retaliation (i.e. 1 silence of plaintiff’s PREA claim; interference and denial of medical care, and mental health 2 treatment); (2) assign an independent investigator to investigate the events of March 18, 2021, 3 and April 8, 2021, (3) order the Office of the Inspector General to generate a report stating why 4 plaintiff’s property was maliciously and vindictively confiscated and destroyed, and (4) alert and 5 notify the Prison Law Office and Coleman monitor (Rosen Bien & Galvan) of plaintiff’s ongoing 6 plight within CDCR. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) 7 Applicable Law 8 A temporary restraining order preserves the status quo before a preliminary injunction 9 hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed only to prevent irreparable loss 10 of rights prior to judgment. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto 11 Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). The standards for both forms of relief are essentially 12 the same. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 13 2001) (“Because our analysis is substantially identical for the injunction and the TRO [temporary 14 restraining order], we do not address the TRO separately.”). 15 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 16 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citations omitted); Epona v. 17 Cty. of Ventura, 876 F.3d 1214, 1227 (9th Cir. 2017). The party seeking a preliminary injunction 18 must establish that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable 19 harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 20 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted); see also American 21 Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 22 Winter, 555 U.S. at 20); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (governing both temporary restraining orders and 23 preliminary injunctions). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 24 plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citation omitted). Also, an injunction 25 against individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. 26 Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a 27 judgment . . . resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party. . . . ”). 28 //// 1 Further, a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate a sufficient 2 nexus between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the underlying 3 complaint. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th 4 Cir. 2015). “The relationship . . . is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would 5 grant relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” Id. (quotation marks 6 omitted). “Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief 7 requested.” Id.; see Saddiq v. Ryan, 703 F. App’x 570, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) 8 (affirming denial of preliminary injunction because the prisoner did not establish a nexus between 9 the claims of retaliation in his motion and the claims set forth in his complaint). 10 Discussion 11 While plaintiff is correct that the complaint highlights his claim under the Prison Rape 12 Elimination Act (“PREA”), the allegations in his motion do not track the allegations in his 13 complaint, which involve First and Eighth Amendment violations at CMF and MCSP in 2020, 14 and do not involve the confiscation or destruction of property at CHCF in March of 2021, after 15 plaintiff filed the instant action. Plaintiff’s motion also seeks relief as to individuals not named as 16 defendants herein. In addition, in his complaint, plaintiff seeks money damages and other relief 17 wholly different from the relief sought in his motion. Because there is no nexus between the 18 claims in plaintiff’s motion and the underlying complaint, this court has no authority to grant 19 injunctive relief. Pacific Radiation, 810 F.3d at 631. Therefore, the undersigned recommends 20 that plaintiff’s motion be denied. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district 22 judge to this action. 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order 24 (ECF No. 12) be denied. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 2 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 || Dated: December 13, 2021 Foci) Aharon 6 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 g /spri0336.tro 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, No. 2:21-cv-0336 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 14 D. AXLEX, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order 18 filed _____________________ : 19 ____ completed summons form 20 ____ completed USM-285 forms 21 ____ copies of the February 22, 2021 22 Complaint 23 DATED: 24 25 ________________________________ 26 Plaintiff 27 28