(PC) Shikeb Saddozai v. Hosey ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, Case No. 1:19-cv-01611-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF1 14 K. HOSEY, M. BOUTTE, OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 15 Defendant. 16 (Doc. No. 23) 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SERVE 18 ORDER ON LITIGATION COORDINATOR 19 This matter comes before the court upon review of this case that was reassigned to the 20 undersigned on November 17, 2020. (See Doc. No. 25). Pending review is plaintiff’s motion for 21 preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 23).2 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned 22 recommends that the court deny plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief. However, the court will 23 request the assistance of the litigation coordinator at plaintiff’s place of incarceration. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner, initiated this action on November 14, 2019 by 26 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 27 (E.D. Cal. 2019). 2 Incorporated in the same motion were plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and appointment of 28 counsel, for which the court entered separate orders. (See Doc. Nos. 26, 27). 1 filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants K. Hosey and M. 2 Boutte. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, adding defendants William J. 3 Sullivan and the director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Doc. 4 No. 12 at 2). The complaint alleges the defendants violated plaintiff’s rights while adjudicating 5 his prison grievances. (See generally Doc. No. 12). On April 29, 2020, the court screened 6 plaintiff’s first amended complaint and finding it deficient, directed plaintiff to file a second 7 amended complaint. (Doc. No. 14 at 2-4). Petitioner has been granted an extension of time until 8 April 22, 2021 to file his second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 26). 9 II. APPLICABLE LAW 10 Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, never 11 awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “A 12 plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 13 that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 14 equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. 15 Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). “[P]laintiffs must establish that 16 irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance 17 for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing 18 irreparable harm, the injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the 19 complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 20 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 21 court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Absent a nexus between the injury 22 claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the court lacks the authority to grant plaintiff 23 any relief. Moreover, the court does not have jurisdiction over nonparties to the suit, and 24 therefore cannot enjoin such individuals in an order for injunctive relief. See Zepeda v. U.S. 25 I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has 26 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 27 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 28 1 Further, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on 2 prisoner litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 3 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 4 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 5 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). As the Ninth Circuit has previously 6 observed, the PLRA places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive 7 relief to inmates, and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts 8 and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or 9 approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” 10 Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 11 III. ANALYSIS 12 a. Law Library Access 13 In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff renews his request for assistance in accessing 14 the law library.3 (Doc. No. 23 at 2). Plaintiff claims that the law library staff is denying him 15 access to paging services and materials. (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff specifically alleges that librarian S. 16 Tomlinson is biased against him, stole his legal documents, and obstructed his access to the court. 17 (Id. at 4). 18 As an initial matter, the complaint does not raise any claims concerning plaintiff’s access 19 to the law library. (See generally Doc. No. 12). Further, plaintiff makes no assertion that the 20 named defendants have any authority over the law library. Thus, the court does not have 21 authority to issue the requested injunctive relief sought. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d 22 at 633. Moreover, plaintiff is again informed that the court has no jurisdiction over nonparties in 23 this case, such as prison library staff, and cannot order prison personnel to provide him library 24 access. (See Doc. No. 24 at 2); Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Therefore, the court recommends that 25 plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be denied. 26 27 3 Plaintiff previously moved for a temporary restraining order directing his prison to provide him with increased law library access. (Doc. No. 3). Although the motion was denied, the assistance of the 28 litigation coordinator at plaintiff’s prison was requested. (Doc. Nos. 15, 24). 1 To the extent plaintiff’s limited access to the law library is impeding his ability to 2 prosecute this claim, plaintiff has other options than seeking injunctive relief. He may seek an 3 extension of time with the court to comply with a court-ordered deadline or he may attach a copy 4 of the court’s order to his request to access the law library to demonstrate to correctional officials 5 that he is under a court-ordered deadline. At this time, the court has granted plaintiff an extension 6 of time in which to file his second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 26). 7 However, as a courtesy, the court will request the assistance of the litigation coordinator at 8 Salinas Valley State Prison in ensuring that plaintiff is afforded adequate opportunities to access 9 the law library, to the extent that doing so is consistent with institutional order and security. See 10 Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (“Prison administrators . . . should be accorded 11 wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their 12 judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional 13 security.”). The clerk’s office will be directed to serve a copy of this order on the litigation 14 coordinator. 15 b. Prison Grievance System 16 Plaintiff complains about the grievance procedure at his prison, alleging that the relief he 17 seeks through the grievance system is wrongly being withheld from him, that various prison staff 18 are biased against him, and that prison staff have wrongfully destroyed his grievance documents. 19 (Doc. No. 23 at 11-14). Although some of these claims mirror the claims in plaintiff’s complaint 20 (see generally Doc. No. 12), plaintiff has failed to state that the named defendants in this case are 21 responsible for the acts described in his motion for injunctive relief. Because the court has no 22 jurisdiction over nonparties in this case, his motion for injunctive relief should be denied. 23 Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 24 c. Miscellaneous Claims for Relief 25 Plaintiff also makes various complaints related to the receipt of his legal mail, his mental 26 and physical health issues, his job placement, and a rules violation report. (Doc. No. 23 at 5-14). 27 These claims do not appear in plaintiff’s complaint, nor does plaintiff state that the named 28 defendants are responsible for the harm alleged. Accordingly, the court recommends that 1 | plaintiff's remaining claims for relief be denied. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 633; 2 | Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 The clerk of court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the litigation coordinator at 5 | Salinas Valley State Prison. 6 Further, it is RECOMMEDED: 7 Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 23) be DENIED. 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES 9 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 10 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 11 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 12 || objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 14 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 15 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. pated: _ March 23, 2021 Mila Nh. fareh Base □□□ 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28