(PC) McDonald v. Jones ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY D. MCDONALD, No. 2:24-cv-1027 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GENA JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 19 order filed September 3, 2024. (ECF No. 10.) For the reasons stated herein, this Court 20 recommends that plaintiff’s motion be denied. 21 I. Legal Standards 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and restraining orders, and 23 requires that a motion for temporary restraining order include “specific facts in an affidavit or a 24 verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate, and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will 25 result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as well as written 26 certification from the movant’s attorney stating “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons 27 why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 28 /// 1 Temporary restraining orders are generally governed by the same standard applicable to 2 preliminary injunctions, except that preliminary injunctions require notice to the adverse party. 3 See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 4 (E.D. Cal. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Eastern District of California Local Rule 231, however, 5 requires notice for temporary restraining orders as well, “[e]xcept in the most extraordinary of 6 circumstances,” and the court considers whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion 7 for preliminary injunction at an earlier date. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(a)-(b). A temporary 8 restraining order “should be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status 9 quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” 10 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 11 423, 439 (1974). 12 A temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary remedy” and may be issued only if 13 plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in 14 the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his/her favor; and (4) that 15 an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 16 (2008). Plaintiff bears the burden of clearly satisfying all four prongs. Alliance for the Wild 17 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). A temporary restraining order will not 18 issue if plaintiff merely shows irreparable harm is possible—a showing of likelihood is required. 19 Id. at 1131. 20 The injunctive relief an applicant requests must relate to the claims brought in the 21 complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 22 2015) (“When a Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 23 court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Absent a nexus between the injury 24 claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the court lacks the authority to grant plaintiff 25 any relief. Id. at 636; see also Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020) 26 (the court’s jurisdiction is “limited to the parties in this action” and the pendency of an action 27 “does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over the conditions of an 28 inmate’s confinement unrelated to the claims before it.”). 1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 2 litigants seeking 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); Villery v. California Dep’t of Corr., 6 2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit observed, the PLRA places 7 significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, and 8 “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the 9 bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that 10 binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 11 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 12 II. Background 13 Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 4, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on 14 October 21, 2023, defendants B. Chaves and Berumen, Correctional Officers at California Health 15 Care Facility (“CHCF”) used excessive force on plaintiff and failed to protect him from harm 16 from fellow inmate Badiu based on defendants’ alleged racist actions taken against plaintiff, who 17 is African American, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, 18 plaintiff claimed that defendant Jones, Warden of CHCF, failed to visit unit sites, and 19 reprimanded her staff for violating her policy concerning securing the doors, but defendants 20 Chavez and Berumen failed to comply with her policy. Finally, plaintiff alleged that defendant 21 Valencia, EOP Supervisor at CHCF, violated CHCF policies because Valencia mishandled an 22 earlier incident involving inmate Badiu.1 23 On May 30, 2024, this Court found plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth and Fourteenth 24 Amendment claims as to defendants Chavez and Berumen and granted plaintiff thirty days to file 25 1 Plaintiff does not define “EOP,” but refers to a “mental health inmate.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) The Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide for the California Department of 26 Corrections and Rehabilitation provides four levels of mental health care services: Correctional 27 Clinical Case Management System (“CCCMS”); Enhanced Outpatient (“EOP”); Mental Health Crisis Bed (“MHCB”); and inpatient hospital care. Coleman v. Brown, 2013 WL 6491529, at *1 28 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013). 1 an election form and choose whether to proceed solely as to defendants Chavez and Berumen or 2 to file an amended complaint in an attempt to state cognizable claims against defendants Jones 3 and Valencia. 4 On September 3, 2024, plaintiff filed the instant motion for temporary restraining order. 5 (ECF No. 10.) 6 III. Claims in Pending Motion for Injunctive Relief 7 In the pending motion, plaintiff claims that the parties in the instant case refuse to obey 8 established case law as to reprisal and the chilling of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and 9 defendant B. Chaves requested her union law enforcement officers assist her in such chilling 10 efforts. (ECF No. 10 at 1.) Plaintiff states that “the most crucial issue is plaintiff’s parole 11 conditions, and how plaintiff [faced] racism 2-1/2 years ago with [his] parole offer 29 [years] in 12 servitude.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he was instructed by a Board of Parole Hearings officer 13 to maintain employment, which plaintiff did for three years. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that every time 14 his parole review comes up, he is subject to racism and corruption, in violation of his First, 15 Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id.) 16 Plaintiff also alleges that he has suffered “verbal defamations” and now has received 17 computer-generated publication of the “known untrue statement,” made to hurt plaintiff’s 18 reputation. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks an order restraining defendant B. Chaves, and four nonparties, 19 Correctional Officers Dennis, Serna, and Duran, and Sgt. Moreno, from continuing with the 20 alleged reprisals and chilling efforts.2 (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff argues that this Court has the 21 authority to restrain these individuals based on their unlawful conduct, and claims this is the first 22 time he has “challenged the 13th Amendment servitude clause.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges the 23 last publication by Sgt. Moreno was taken to ensure plaintiff was denied parole after thirty years 24 and asks the Court to “take judicial notice that if [Sgt. Moreno] or they would go that far to create 25 /// 26 27 2 Plaintiff adds: “(Attention) there is no amending. I consent to B. Chaves & Berumen and (Jones [&] Valencia are dismiss[ed]).” (ECF No. 10 at 2.) By separate order, the Court will 28 address how this case proceeds. 1 a situation to permanently keep a black man in slavery -- . . . all due to e-filed McDonald v. 2 Jones,” the instant action (referred to hereafter as “the instant action”). (Id. at 3.) 3 Plaintiff attaches several documents as exhibits to the pending motion: 4 • An informational chrono dated July 16, 2024, and purportedly signed by Sgt. M. 5 Moreno in which she confirmed plaintiff was terminated as a porter, based on 6 plaintiff’s alleged actions on July 14, 2024. (Id. at 5.) 7 • Office of Appeals Decision dated April 20, 2024, granting plaintiff’s appeal, log 8 No. 000000497680 concerning a canteen order missing from plaintiff’s December 9 2023 order. (Id. at 6.) 10 • Plaintiff’s July 29, 2024 grievance references the instant action, and claims 11 “respondent(s),” not limited to those named in the grievance, have all “violated 12 federal law as to reprisal and chilling [plaintiff’s] First Amendment rights,” and 13 notes he discussed this matter with Lt. Modison, sought an FBI investigation, filed 14 a motion for temporary restraining order, and sought congressional protection from 15 “Cal. Congress.” (Id. at 8.) In his summary, plaintiff cites (A) libel/defamation 16 based on (1) verbal; and (2) computer-generated acts to deny plaintiff parole; 17 (B) reprisal for First Amendment claims raised in the instant action, claiming 18 defendant B. Chaves has a history of chilling inmates’ First Amendment rights; 19 and (C) plaintiff’s employment was important condition of his parole chances, and 20 the alleged racial bias violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Id. at 9.) 21 • Plaintiff’s May 18, 2024 staff complaint which raised multiple allegations against 22 defendant B. Chaves for her “unprofessional and unethical behavior and conduct,” 23 by, inter alia, making plaintiff carry a 40 pound trash can upstairs in violation of 24 his work chrono; and yelling at plaintiff not to put toilet paper in the back supply 25 closet. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff claimed Chaves never had issues with plaintiff until 26 after plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit. (Id.) 27 • Plaintiff’s December 13, 2023 Medical Classification Chrono confirming he was 28 not to lift more than 19 pounds, and his December 12, 2023 disability confirmation 1 form. (Id. at 12-14.) 2 • An unsigned Work Supervisor’s Report noting a recommended pay increase for 3 plaintiff, to be effective on June 5, 2023, based on positive comments by plaintiff’s 4 supervisor, B. Chaves. (Id. at 15.) 5 • Plaintiff’s undated letter addressed to the Director of the CDCR, informing the 6 Director that plaintiff filed two separate federal complaints and requested the FBI 7 to investigate the racial disparities at CHCF, and alleging, in pertinent part, that 8 CHCF staff “have tried to force [plaintiff] to recant [his] federal complaint, 9 chilling and violating [his] 1st Amendment rights.” (Id. at 17.) Plaintiff asked the 10 Director to curb these reprisals and threats. (Id.) 11 IV. Discussion 12 The Court finds that plaintiff’s motion should be denied. Plaintiff’s putative retaliation 13 claims raised in his motion are not based on the claims raised in the complaint. The instant action 14 proceeds solely on plaintiff’s claims that on October 21, 2023, defendants B. Chaves and 15 Berumen used excessive force on plaintiff and failed to protect him from harm from another 16 inmate based on defendants’ alleged racist actions taken against plaintiff, in violation of the 17 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. As discussed above, the Court cannot grant injunctive relief 18 regarding claims not raised in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC., 810 F.3d at 19 633. Because plaintiff’s putative retaliation claims are not based on the claims raised in the 20 complaint, such claims should be pursued in a separate action. 21 Plaintiff asserts that his retaliation claims are related because he was allegedly retaliated 22 against based on the filing of the instant action in which he is pursuing his Eighth and Fourteenth 23 Amendment claims against defendant Chaves. But the Ninth Circuit is clear that the nexus must 24 be to the claims raised in the underlying complaint. Id. at 636. Absent such nexus, the court 25 lacks the authority to grant plaintiff any relief. Id.; see also Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 26 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding prisoner’s claim for injunctive relief based on retaliation for bringing 27 the lawsuit was entirely different and separate from the underlying conduct raised in the civil 28 rights action). Because plaintiff’s First Amendment claims are based on the filing of the instant 1 | action, and not the claims brought within the instant action, plaintiff's motion should be denied. 2 Therefore, it is recommended that plaintiff's motion be denied. 3] V. Conclusion 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district 5 || judge to this action; and 6 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 7 || (ECF No. 10) be denied. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 10 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 11 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 13 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 14 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 6 Dated: September 6, 2024 7 _- Chan Spo 17 CHI SOO KIM 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 /\/medo1027.tro 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28