Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440-13/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 

SHERMAN D. MANNING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. BUNNELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has 

filed a document containing multiple putative motions. ECF No. 115.1 Plaintiff evidently seeks: 

(1) an order from the court directing defendants’ counsel and the prison litigation coordinator to 

allow plaintiff to call and consult with Attorney Bob Blasier while plaintiff is being deposed on 

June 27, 2014; (2) an order that defendants be made available for plaintiff to depose them “on the 

second Monday in July”; (3) leave to amend the second amended complaint; and (4) a temporary 

restraining order prohibiting a non-defendant correctional officer from handling plaintiff’s mail or 

entering his cell. Id. 

//// 

 

1

 These “motions” in the form of a letter directed to the Clerk of the Court are dated June 18, 

2014; a certificate of service is not attached. This document is file-stamped June 25, 2014 and 

was entered into the case docket on June 26, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 06/26/14 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

I. Requests Regarding Discovery 

 Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se. Mr. Blasier and plaintiff have not filed any motion for 

Mr. Blasier to be substituted in as counsel. Nor has Mr. Blasier indicated to this court his wish 

for even a limited appointment -- for the purpose of discovery, for example. Accordingly, the 

court will not direct defendants’ counsel to allow plaintiff to consult with Mr. Blasier during his 

deposition. 

 As for taking defendants’ depositions, plaintiff appears to be seeking to circumvent the 

applicable procedures and/or asking the court to act as his counsel. Plaintiff is informed Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 30 governs the procedures for taking a deposition by oral examination. 

A deposition must be properly noticed pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1). Under Rule 30(b)(3), the party 

noticing the deposition must set forth “in the notice the method for recording the testimony” and 

is responsible for the costs of recording. Plaintiff’s requests regarding his own deposition and the 

taking of defendants’ depositions must be denied. 

 II. Request for Leave to Amend 

 This matter is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendants 

Stratton, Humphries, Johnson, Ralls, May, Couch and Wenker. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15(a)(2), plaintiff may amend “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the 

court’s leave.” Plaintiff asks the court for leave to amend, contending that mail between himself 

and his attorneys was held, stolen or shredded and therefore “several documents” he mailed were 

not included in the complaint. ECF No. 115 at 2. Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended 

complaint or make any showing that amendment is appropriate under Rule 15. Plaintiff’s request 

for leave to amend is wholly deficient and will be denied. 

III. Temporary Restraining Order 

 Plaintiff contends without any supporting affidavit that Correctional Officer Jimmy 

McCartney, who is not a party to this lawsuit, is acting in collusion with certain former and 

current defendants in tampering with, reading and stealing plaintiff’s legal mail and ransacking 

his cell. ECF No. 115 at 4. He states that C/O McCartney has told him that he will not stop 

tampering with his mail unless plaintiff drops this lawsuit. Id. Plaintiff also states that he 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 06/26/14 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

reported McCartney to a Lieutenant Jennings on June 22, 2014 and that the lieutenant “has 

followed up.....” Id. It is unclear what the result has been. Plaintiff asks this court on this basis 

to issue a TRO prohibiting a non-party from handling his mail or entering his cell.2 

 The request is procedurally defective in several ways. Temporary restraining orders are 

governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b), which impose procedural requirements that plaintiff clearly has 

not met. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Rule 65(b)(1) permits issuance of a TRO only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 

complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury ... will result to the movant before 

the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing 

any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” The certification 

required by this rule is not provided. Moreover, plaintiff has provided no affidavits or exhibits, 

and has not alleged any specific facts, to demonstrate the risk of immediate and irreparable injury. 

If construed as a request for preliminary injunctive relief under Rule 65(a), plaintiff’s 

request is equally defective. As noted, plaintiff’s allegations are unsupported by affidavit or 

evidence. Relief is sought against a party over whom the court has no jurisdiction, and who – as 

far as the court can determine – has had no notice of the request. Plaintiff fails to address the 

traditional factors governing injunctive relief. See Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing 

Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). He provides no specific facts to show that 

C/O McCartney is acting “in active concert or participation” with defendants. See Rule 

65(d)(2)(C); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

Because plaintiff’s request does not properly present a motion for preliminary injunctive 

relief, it will be vacated as procedurally defective. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s requests (ECF No. 115) regarding his deposition and the taking of 

depositions of the defendants are denied; 

 2. Plaintiff’s deficient motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 115) is denied; 

 

2

 Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, cannot be had against a non-party. See 

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 06/26/14 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

 3. Plaintiff’s deficient motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 115) is vacated. 

DATED: June 26, 2014 

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 06/26/14 Page 4 of 4