Picozzi v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 MARK PICOZZI, Case No. 2:22-cv-01011-ART-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Mark Picozzi (“Picozzi”), who is incarcerated in the custody of 11 the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), has submitted a civil-rights 12 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple defendants. Before the Court 13 are 1) a Motion for a Hearing with all Judges Present (ECF No. 200); a Motion for 14 Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction & TRO (ECF No. 202); a Motion 15 to Strike ECF No. 202 (ECF No. 206); a Motion for a Hearing (ECF No. 207); a 16 Motion to Strike ECF No. 207 (ECF No. 208); an Emergency Motion for a TRO 17 (ECF No. 214); an Emergency Motion for an Injunction (ECF No. 215); an Appeal 18 of a Magistrate Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Serious Medical Issues (ECF 19 No. 236); and a Motion for Leave to File Documents Regarding Defendants’ 20 Response to ECF No. 236 (ECF No. 240). 21 I. Relevant Background 22 Plaintiff alleges various civil rights violations against Defendants. In his 23 Amended Complaint, Plaintiff accuses Defendants of denying him access to 24 medical treatment for hemorrhoids and a back condition, failing to process 25 requests to the law library, retaliating against him for submitting grievances, 26 refusing to let him have a TV, withholding mail, and denying him Tier Time during 27 Covid-19 related lockdowns. (ECF No. 10.) 28 /// 1 II. Legal Standard 2 Restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are “extraordinary 3 remed[ies] never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 4 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The legal standard for obtaining a temporary restraining order 5 and the legal standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction are “substantially 6 identical.” See Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co. v. John D. Bush and Co., 240 F.3d 832, 7 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 8 The Supreme Court clarified the standard for these forms of equitable relief in 9 Winter, instructing that the plaintiff “must establish that [he] is likely to succeed 10 on the merits, that [he] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 11 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [his] favor, and that an 12 injunction [or restraining order] is in the public interest.” 555 U.S. at 20. The 13 Ninth Circuit also recognizes an additional standard: “if a plaintiff can only show 14 that there are ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser showing than 15 likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue 16 if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the other two 17 Winter factors are satisfied.’” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 18 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 19 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). 20 A plaintiff who seeks a mandatory injunction—one that goes beyond simply 21 maintaining the status quo during litigation—bears a “doubly demanding” 22 burden: “[he] must establish that the law and facts clearly favor [his] position, 23 not simply that [he] is likely to succeed.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 24 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that mandatory 25 injunctions are “particularly disfavored” and “should not issue in doubtful cases.” 26 Id. (internal quotations omitted). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 27 similarly instructs that any restraining order or preliminary injunction granted 28 with respect to prison conditions “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further 1 than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, 2 and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3 3626(a)(2). 4 Finally, “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the 5 motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 6 complaint.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 7 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Pacific Radiation”). “This requires a sufficient nexus between 8 the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims in the underlying 9 complaint itself.” Id. The necessary connection is satisfied “where the preliminary 10 injunction would grant ‘relief of the same character as that which may be granted 11 finally.’” Id. (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). “Absent 12 that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief 13 requested.” Id. 14 III. Analysis 15 a. Motion for In-Person Hearing with all 4 Judges Present (ECF No. 200) 16 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for an In-Person Hearing (ECF No. 17 200). In his motion, Plaintiff requests an in person hearing with multiple prison 18 officials regarding his allegations that the prison is tampering with his mail. (Id. 19 at 1-2.) He also asks that the Court subpoena multiple phone calls between him 20 and the Nevada Attorney General’s Office. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff fails to provide any 21 authority for holding this hearing. Furthermore, the Court already overruled 22 Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Youchah’s order denying his motion to stop 23 retaliation regarding the mail tampering. (ECF No. 204 at 3-4.) For these reasons, 24 the Court denies ECF No. 200. 25 b. Motion for Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction & TRO 26 (ECF No. 202) and Motion to Strike ECF No. 202 (ECF No. 206) 27 Plaintiff also filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary 28 Injunction & TRO. (ECF No. 202.) Plaintiff asks the Court to order Associate 1 Warden Julie Williams to appear at Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing, require 2 Defendants to produce taped phone calls between him and the Attorney General’s 3 Office, and dismiss his disciplinary charge. (Id. at 1-2.) Defendants filed a Motion 4 to Strike ECF No. 202. (ECF No. 206.) Defendants argue that the Court should 5 strike the motion. (Id. at 2-3.) 6 The Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Strike. A court may “strike from 7 a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 8 scandalous matter. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). Plaintiff’s motion is immaterial and 9 impertinent because it asks this Court to micromanage prison matters beyond 10 the scope of its authority. See, e.g., LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1454 (9th 11 Cir. 1993) (quoting Bruscino v. Carlson, 854 F.2d 162, 164-65 (7th Cir. 1998), 12 cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907 (1989)) (emphasizing the need to evaluate prison 13 conditions against “the limited competence of federal judges to micromanage 14 prisons”). Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s motion on its merits, he 15 would not succeed because, among other things, the issues he raises in this 16 motion have no substantive nexus to the relief requested in his complaint. See 17 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th 18 Cir. 2015) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 19 (1945)) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it 20 denied a preliminary injunction because it did not “grant[] relief of the same 21 nature as that to be finally granted”). Thus, the Court grants the motion to strike. 22 c. Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 207) and Motion to Strike ECF No. 207 23 (ECF No. 208) 24 The Court will also grant Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 208) to Strike 25 Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing (ECF No. 207.) Plaintiff discusses proceedings in 26 a different case and requests a hearing to discuss his medical status. (Id. at 2-4.) 27 Defendants argue that the Court should strike the motion because Plaintiff 28 provides no legal argument and discusses unrelated matters in another case. 1 (ECF No. 208 at 2-3.) The Court will grant the motion to strike because the other 2 case proceedings are not relevant to the present case and Plaintiff provides no 3 authority for holding a hearing. 4 d. Emergency Motion for TRO and Emergency Motion for Injunction 5 (ECF Nos. 214 and 215) 6 The Court next considers Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for TRO and 7 Emergency Motion for Injunction. (ECF Nos. 214, 215.)1 Plaintiff alleges that High 8 Desert State Prison (HDSP) is retaliating against him by not giving him his 9 medications and moving him to a new cell without water and working lights 10 despite knowing he is not supposed to do any heavy lifting. (ECF No. 214 at 1-4.) 11 The Court will deny these motions because the issues Plaintiff raises have 12 no substantive nexus to the relief requested in his complaint. See Pac. Radiation 13 Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 14 De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)) (concluding 15 that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a preliminary 16 injunction because it did not “grant[] relief of the same nature as that to be finally 17 granted”). In his complaint, Plaintiff raised numerous issues with his medical 18 care, including not receiving hemorrhoid surgery, back surgery, or follow-up care 19 for his right eye. (ECF No. 10 at 15.) He also complained about his transfer to 20 NNCC, during which his feet were shackled and he had belly chains to both 21 wrists. (Id. at 15-16.) Plaintiff also alleged that he received disciplinary charges 22 for refusing to move in with a cell mate despite his bleeding hemorrhoids causing 23 fights with cellmates and that prison officials refused to provide medical 24 assistance when his hemorrhoids bled. (Id. at 16-19.) Plaintiff never raises issues 25 with his housing or receiving his medications. While Plaintiff argues in his reply 26 that there is a sufficient nexus between the issues raised in his complaint and 27 1 These motions appear identical, so the Court will cite to the Emergency Motion 28 for TRO (ECF No. 214). 1 the present motions because he cannot receive hemorrhoid surgery until his high 2 blood pressure is properly treated with regular access to his blood pressure 3 medication (ECF No. 232 at 3-4), the Court is unpersuaded because this 4 argument does not relate to his complaints about his cell move and Plaintiff never 5 alleged in his complaint that any delays in his surgeries was connected to not 6 receiving his medications. If Plaintiff believes he faces new violations of his rights, 7 he must grieve his concerns, exhaust his administrative rights, and initiate a new 8 action. 9 e. Objection/Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order (ECF No. 236) and 10 Motion for Leave to File a Reply (ECF No. 240) 11 The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s objection/appeal (ECF No. 236) of Judge 12 Youchah’s order (ECF No. 235) denying his Emergency Motion to Serious Medical 13 Issues (ECF No. 218) and his Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Defendants’ 14 Response to his objection to his appeal (ECF No. 240). The Court first addresses 15 the motion for leave (ECF No. 240). Defendants argue that the Court should deny 16 the motion because Plaintiff did not technically request leave of the Court to file 17 his reply as required by LR IB 3-1(a) and he failed to include points and 18 authorities as required by LR 7-2(d). (ECF No. 242 at 3.) While the Court 19 recognizes these concerns, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will treat 20 Plaintiff’s motion as a request for leave and grant the motion. 21 The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s objection. This Court “may accept, reject, 22 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 23 magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a 24 magistrate judge’s order, then the Court is required to “make a de novo 25 determination of those portions of the [order] to which objection is made.” Id. 26 However, Plaintiff’s motion does not specify his objections to Judge Youchah’s 27 order and instead alleges that Defendants lied in their response to his emergency 28 motion. (ECF No. 236 at 1-5.) Because Plaintiff’s motion thus functions as a reply 1 to Defendants’ response, which Judge Youchah explicitly forbid (ECF No. 219 at 2 1), the Court will not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 3 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 4 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations 5 is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 6 recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 7 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that 8 there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 9 recommendation.”). 10 The Court is satisfied that Judge Youchah did not clearly err. Here, Plaintiff 11 alleges that he has not received his medications, was not allowed to keep his 12 heart monitor, and has not received treatment for an infection from the surgery. 13 (ECF No. 218 at 1-5.) Judge Youchah denied Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff’s 14 medical records (ECF No. 229) showed that “[w]hile the medical care Plaintiff 15 receives may not be perfect, the records reflect substantial efforts to address all 16 of Plaintiff’s health concerns in a reasonably timely manner and upon learning of 17 any delays.” (ECF No. 235 at 1.) Judge Youchah noted that “on April 18, 2024, 18 Plaintiff signed an acknowledgement that he received all of his medications except 19 Lisinopril…[and] Plaintiff received his Lisinopril before May 8, 2024.” (Id.). Judge 20 Youchah also stated that “[t]he evidence does not support Plaintiff suffers from 21 any infection.” (Id.) With regards to the heart monitor, Judge Youchah said “the 22 failure to provide a mobile device that connects to Plaintiff’s heart monitor is 23 explained and supported by the fact that there is no WiFi in the facility to which 24 the device will connect and that the device may be altered in such a manner that 25 it could be used as a cell phone.” (Id.) She further stated that “the cardiologist 26 does receive monitoring information from the heart monitor and no Holter- 27 episodes were noted.” (Id.) Having reviewed the record in this case, the Court 28 agrees with Judge Youchah’s conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s medical treatment. 1 || The Court will deny Plaintiffs Objection/Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order (ECF 2 || No. 236). 3 IV. Conclusion 4 It is therefore ordered that the following motions are denied: ECF Nos. 200, 9 || 214, 215, 236. 6 It is further ordered that the following motions are granted: ECF Nos. 206, 7 || 208, 240. 8 It is further ordered that the following motions are stricken: ECF Nos. 202, 9 || 207. 10 11 12 DATED THIS 26th day of July 2024. 13 14 Ares jlosect qe 18 ANNER.TRAUM 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28