(PC) Brackett v. Anderson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMOND CHARLES BRACKETT, No. 2:21-cv-02282-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WENDELL ANDERSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The plaintiff, an inmate at Yuba County Jail proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights 18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 8, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The plaintiff has filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations reach the correct result, but they are not supported by the proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 The magistrate judge recommends denial of six motions for preliminary injunction filed 2 by the plaintiff based on findings in a screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). See ECF 3 No. 33 at 3. Included with the recommendations on the motions for injunctive relief, this 4 screening order finds the second amended complaint is inadequately pled. See id. In this 5 screening order, as in a prior screening order since vacated, see ECF No. 14, the magistrate judge 6 finds generally that the pleadings contain unrelated claims that should not be joined in a single 7 action. See ECF No. 33 at 3. The magistrate judge further finds the plaintiff has not alleged with 8 sufficient specificity acts or omissions by each named defendant that contributed to the alleged 9 violations of his constitutional rights. See id. 10 “[B]efore dismissing a pro se complaint the district court must provide the litigant with 11 notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity 12 to amend effectively.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ferdik v. 13 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). The recent screening order and its predecessor 14 do not meet this requirement. The order cites no legal authority governing joinder of claims—not 15 even the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure. Nor does the order provide any explanation for the 16 finding that the claims are insufficiently related. As a result, the order’s conclusory assertion that 17 the claims “are not sufficiently related” does not allow the plaintiff an effective opportunity to 18 cure this purported deficiency. ECF No. 33 at 3. 19 Moreover, the finding that plaintiff did not “allege what actions each defendant took in 20 personally violating his rights,” id. at 3, is not fully supported by the record. Review of the 21 second amended complaint shows it includes both specific factual allegations against named 22 defendants and more general allegations against other unnamed individuals. See ECF No. 32 23 at 3–5. The screening order does not distinguish between these separate sets of allegations. In 24 this way, the screening order is ambiguous about the pleading issues that are the basis for this 25 aspect of the finding that the second amended complaint is deficient. Without such factual 26 explication, the plaintiff does not have sufficient “notice of the deficiencies in his complaint” to 27 be able to effectively use his opportunity to amend. Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1212. 28 ///// ] Although the court adopts the findings and recommendations’ conclusion that the 2 || plaintiffs six motions for preliminary injunctive relief must be denied without prejudice, it does 3 || so based on different reasoning. To prevail on a motion for injunctive relief, a plaintiff “must 4 || establish that he is liked to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 5 || absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 6 || isin the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In order to make the 7 || required showing under Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the movant must provide a basis in evidence, 8 || not “platitudes.” Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc.,736 F.3d 1239, 1250 9 | (9th Cir. 2013). Here, the plaintiff's six motions for preliminary injunctive relief are unattested 10 || statements unsupported by evidence. See ECF Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13. Without evidentiary 11 || support, the court cannot grant injunctive relief and therefore denies without prejudice the 12 | plaintiffs motions. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13, 15 || are DENIED without prejudice; and 16 2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 17 || proceedings consistent with this order. 18 | DATED: October 11, 2022. 19 20 l ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28