Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01692/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01692-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MACK A. WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN PETTIGREW, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-1692 JAM CKD P

ORDER AND FINDINGS & 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Presently before the court are plaintiff’s motions for 

preliminary injunction and for further extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ 

motion to compel, both filed on March 17, 2014. ECF Nos. 127, 128. For the reasons discussed 

below, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied and 

will grant plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time.

I. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well established. To 

prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits and the 

possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships 

tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 

Case 2:11-cv-01692-JAM-CKD Document 129 Filed 03/21/14 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th 

Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point 

being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any 

formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of 

irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the 

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. 

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 

injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the 

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 

harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Initially, the principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s 

power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See C. Wright & A. Miller, 11 

Federal Practice and Procedure, §2947 (1973). In addition to demonstrating that he will suffer 

irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show a “fair 

chance of success on the merits” of his claim. Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press

International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982), quoting Benda v. Grand Lodge of

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 

1979). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there

will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is

brought to trial.

In addition, as a general rule this court is unable to issue an order against individuals who 

are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 

U.S. 100 (1969).

Here, plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction ordering a number of non-parties to refrain 

from obstructing plaintiff’s efforts to interview inmate witnesses currently housed in other prisons 

for purposes of obtaining evidence in support of his claims against defendants. Plaintiff further 

seeks an injunction against the Warden and Litigation Coordinator at California Medical Facility 

(“CMF”), both of whom are non-parties to this action, in connection with the alleged failure of 

Case 2:11-cv-01692-JAM-CKD Document 129 Filed 03/21/14 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the medical and mental health staff at CMF to provide plaintiff with his mental health records, 

which he claims are needed to advance his claims against defendants.

Plaintiff makes no allegations in his motion for preliminary injunction with respect to the 

defendants named in this action. As stated above, this court is unable to issue an order against 

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp, 395 U.S. at 

112. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion should be denied for this reason alone. 

Furthermore, the allegations in the motion at bar arise from events that occurred in late 

2013 and early 2014, well after the 2008 incidents on which the action at bar is based, and are 

only tangentially related to plaintiff’s cause of action. The allegations in the motion appear to be 

related to plaintiff’s frustrations in trying to obtain certain discovery items. A preliminary 

injunction is an improper procedural device for granting plaintiff the relief sought. The Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure provide plaintiff with a number of procedural devices which he can use 

in seeking to obtain the discovery items he identifies in his motion.

The motion also implicates plaintiff’s right to access the courts. In Lewis v. Casey, 518 

U.S. 343 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that prison inmates have a constitutionally 

protected right to access the courts to bring civil rights actions to challenge their conditions of 

confinement and to bring challenges to their criminal convictions. 518 U.S. at 351. The right of 

access to the courts “guarantees no particular methodology but rather the conferral of a capability 

-- the capability of bringing contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement 

before the courts.” Id. at 356. In order to demonstrate a cognizable threat to this right, plaintiff 

must present evidence that defendants by their acts will prevent him from bringing, or cause him 

to lose, an actionable claim of this type. Id.

Plaintiff has not made the required showing on the motion at bar. Specifically, the record 

before this court does not support a finding that plaintiff is threatened with irreparable harm by 

defendants to his ability to litigate this action.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be 

denied.

////

Case 2:11-cv-01692-JAM-CKD Document 129 Filed 03/21/14 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

II. MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff has filed his third request for an extension of time to file an opposition to 

defendants’ December 11, 2013, motion to compel. ECF No. 127. Good cause appearing, the 

request will be granted. No further extensions of time will be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 127) is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an opposition 

to the motion to compel. No further extensions of time will be granted.

Furthermore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s March 17, 2014 motion 

for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 128) be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: March 20, 2014

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-01692-JAM-CKD Document 129 Filed 03/21/14 Page 4 of 4