Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00198/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00198-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SKRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00198-OWW-LJO P

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FILED ON OCTOBER

4, 2006

(Doc. 5)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTION

AS MOOT

(Doc. 6)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

(Doc. 8)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND PLAINTIFF COPIES OF COMPLAINTS

Plaintiff Shaun Darnell Garland (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 22, 2006. On

March 22, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On

October 4, 2006, after plaintiff apparently failed to comply with the court’s order, the court issued

a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action. On November 6, 2006,

plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an objection and an objection. Because

plaintiff filed an objection, his motion for an extension of time is moot and shall be denied. Further,

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 5
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

for the reasons set forth below, it is unnecessary for plaintiff to file any further response to the

Findings and Recommendations. 

The court has reviewed the actions filed by plaintiff in this district. This action was filed on

February 22, 2006. Case number 2:06-cv-00400-FCD-DAD P was opened in the Sacramento

Division on February 27, 2006, and transferred to this court on March 3, 2006, where it was assigned

case number 1:06-cv-00270-OWW-WMW P and closed on April 21, 2006, on the ground that it was

duplicative of this action. The court has reviewed the dockets in all three cases and notes that

plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 6, 2006, in case number 06-

00270. The court shall take judicial notice of that motion and grant it in a separate order issued

concurrently with this order. Accordingly, the Findings and Recommendations filed on October 4,

2006, shall be vacated.

On November 16, 2006, plaintiff a motion seeking multiple forms of relief, none of which

plaintiff is entitled to. First, with respect to plaintiff’s motion for various court orders directed at

prison personnel, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance

of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm,

or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v.

Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff

“must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not

issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the

plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to

require litigation.” Id.

Second, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102,

103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 5
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

F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it,

it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, any preliminary injunction must serve the

purpose of remedying a claim in the action. If the order sought would not remedy a claim in the

action, the court has no power to issue the order. 

As such, preliminary injunctive relief does not serve the purpose of allowing plaintiff to

obtain court orders in this action concerning his current conditions of confinement or his ability to

litigate this action effectively or efficiently, or addressing the problems he is encountering with the

mail system. Plaintiff is housed at Kern Valley State Prison and the claims alleged in this action

accrued while plaintiff was housed at California State Prison-Corcoran. Orders of the type described

in this paragraph would not serve to remedy claims arising from past conditions of confinement

plaintiff was subjected to while at Corcoran. 

With respect to the three complaints plaintiff alleges he mailed to the court, plaintiff did not

state that he submitted an envelope bearing the cost to return a conformed copy of the complaint to

him. In order to obtain a conformed copy of a filing, plaintiff must do more than submit three

copies. He must submit a self-addressed envelope bearing sufficient postage. If plaintiff does not

submit such an envelope, no copy will be returned to plaintiff. If plaintiff submits an envelope with

postage but the postage is insufficient, plaintiff will be sent only the first page of the filing. The

court will, as a one-time courtesy, send plaintiff copies of the complaints in both actions. However,

as elaborated upon in the last two paragraphs in this order, plaintiff is not to use the complaint copies

as a basis to raise any further concerns with the court in this action regarding the contents of the

complaints or over who mailed what to where. 

Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are denied. “A judicially noticed fact must be one not

subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction

of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). “A court shall take judicial notice

if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). 

“Judicial notice is an adjudicative device that alleviates the parties’ evidentiary duties at trial,

serving as a substitute for the conventional method of taking evidence to establish facts.” York v.

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 5
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

American Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted); see

General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997).

“Matters may be judicially noticed in connection with pretrial motions as well as at trial.” JUDGE

ROBERT E. JONES ET AL., FEDERAL CIVIL TRIALS AND EVIDENCE § 8:935 (2006). At this juncture,

there are no pre-trial dispositive motions pending and this matter has not yet been set for trial.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are premature. The court will not take judicial

notice of facts unless the request is made in conjunction with a pre-trial motion or trial.

Plaintiff requests the court to reconsider the dismissal of case number 1:06-cv-00270-OWWWMW P. First, any such motion is misplaced in this action, and would have to be filed in case

number 06-00270. Second, and of greater importance, plaintiff’s request is illogical. Regardless of

whether or not plaintiff intended to mail a complaint to Sacramento and regardless of who was

responsible for mailing a complaint to Sacramento, one was received there and a case was opened

as a result. It is a fact that the complaint in that action was duplicative of the complaint in this

action. Case number 06-00270 was properly dismissed, and the court would under no circumstance

set aside a dismissal for duplicity when the two cases were in fact duplicative. 

Although plaintiff asserts his objective is to prove that he did not make duplicative filings

and that defendants did so to get the complaint dismissed, a goal they accomplished, (1) it is

irrelevant who caused the duplicative filings, as no prejudice has befallen plaintiff, and (2) no such

goal was accomplished. Two actions were opened, and the complaint in each action set forth the

same claims. One action was dismissed, but the other one - this action - remains open and pending.

Thus, plaintiff’s action has not been dismissed and plaintiff has suffered no harm as a result of the

mix-up regarding the two actions. This concludes the court’s review of plaintiff’s motion. No

further motions concerning the alleged mix-up regarding the documents sent to Sacramento and the

documents sent to this court will be addressed.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 4, 2006, is VACATED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an objection, filed November 6,

2006, is DENIED as moot;

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief, filed November 13, 2006, is DENIED;

and

4. As a one-time courtesy, the Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff copies of his

complaints in this action and in case number 06-00270. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 5 of 5