Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-3012 JAM KJN P

vs.

J. HAVILAND, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This civil rights action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s claims that, while he was housed at California State Prison-Solano

(“CSP-SOL”), defendant Rosario used excessive force on plaintiff on August 5, 2008, and that

defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire retaliated against plaintiff in early 2009. Plaintiff has

filed two supplements to his complaint, a motion for temporary restraining order based on the

supplemental complaint, a motion to dispense with the requirements of security, and a motion for

appointment of counsel. Defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s supplemental complaint. 

The court will address these motions seriatim, but finds that defendants’ motion to strike is

granted, that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied, and that

plaintiff’s remaining motions are denied. 

1

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 72 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 6
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

II. Motion to Strike Supplemental Complaint

Plaintiff is presently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

in Corcoran (“SATF”). On February 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint seeking

injunctive relief based on incidents that occurred at SATF in 2012, and at California State Prison,

Corcoran (“CSP-COR”) in 2010. Both of these prisons are located within the jurisdiction of the 1

Fresno Division of this court. Plaintiff claims “an ongoing, illegal practice by the defendants”

(dkt. No. 61 at 1); however, none of the defendants listed in plaintiff’s supplemental complaint

are defendants Rosario, Garcia, or McGuire, and none of the allegations pertain to incidents that

occurred at CSP-SOL. 

In his statement of claim, plaintiff includes allegations pled in the instant action,

but also includes allegations that are contained in an unidentified district court in case No. 12-

2048 ABC (SH), in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 12-56316 (dkt. no. 61 at 3), and in the

Fresno Division of this court in 1:11-cv-1205 JLT (religious diet claims arising at CSP-COR)

(dkt. no. 61 at 8).

Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or 

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is

required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days

after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is

earlier.

Id. 

Plaintiff has not been granted leave to file a supplemental pleading in this 2009

case. Plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint, and is therefore not allowed to amend

the complaint as of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Plaintiff’s prior efforts to file supplemental

 Plaintiff filed another copy of the supplemental complaint on April 25, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1

69.)

2

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 72 Filed 04/30/13 Page 2 of 6
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

pleadings were denied, and plaintiff was informed that he must proceed with one complaint in

which all claims are pled. (Dkt. No. 15.) Moreover, unrelated claims against different

defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim,

multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees -

- for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that

any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” George v.

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants

not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). As set

forth above, there is no commonality between the allegations of the proposed supplemental

complaint and the operative complaint herein. Thus, defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s

supplemental complaint is granted, and plaintiff’s supplemental complaints (dkt. nos. 61 and 69)

are stricken. Because plaintiff interspersed unrelated claims within his supplemental complaint,

the court will not order that the supplemental complaint be transferred to the Fresno Division. 

Rather, plaintiff must file separate complaints pertaining to incidents that occurred at CSP-COR

and SATF, because the allegations do not pertain to the same transaction or share commonality.

For all of the above reasons, defendants’ motion to strike is granted, and

plaintiff’s supplemental complaints are stricken.

III. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order against J. Beard, Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Warden R. Diaz, SATF; J.D. Lozano,

Chief of Appeals; C.M. Heck, and Lt. R.K. Williams. Plaintiff asks for a court order enjoining

defendants from “entering plaintiff’s assigned cell and removing any personal property . . . unless

it is determined that it is stolen or poses a safety concern for staff or inmates,” “refusing any

religious special purchase items approved; restraining plaintiff based on unsubstantiated

confidential information that has not been tested for ‘reliability’ before restraining and/or

confining plaintiff in administrative segregation;” and keeping certain confidential information

3

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 72 Filed 04/30/13 Page 3 of 6
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

out of plaintiff’s central file. (Dkt. No. 68 at 1-2.) 

“The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to

demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.

2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

A Ninth Circuit panel has found that post-Winter, this circuit’s sliding scale

approach or “serious questions” test survives “when applied as part of the four-element Winter

test.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 2011 WL 208360, at *7 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2011). 

“That is, ‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply

towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also

shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public

interest.” Id. In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary

injunctive relief “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).

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 11A Charles Alan Wright

& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). As noted above, 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) (internal

citation omitted). 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.

4

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 72 Filed 04/30/13 Page 4 of 6
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

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

The claims on which plaintiff’s motion is predicated are not included in the

operative complaint on which this action is proceeding, as set forth above, and does not raise

allegations against the defendants remaining in this action. For that reason, the claims will not be

given a hearing on the merits at trial. Thus, the court cannot grant plaintiff injunctive relief. The

undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order be denied. In

light of this recommendation, plaintiff’s motion to dispense with security is denied without

prejudice.

IV. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an

attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

(9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must

consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v.

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to

appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. 

Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance

of counsel. 

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has

failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the

appointment of counsel at this time.

5

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 72 Filed 04/30/13 Page 5 of 6
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

V. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to strike (dkt. no. 65) is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s supplemental complaints (dkt. nos. 61, 69) are stricken; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to dispense with the requirement of security (dkt. no. 70) is

denied without prejudice; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 71) is denied.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order

(dkt. no. 68) be denied without prejudice.

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 filed and served 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: April 29, 2013

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

mitc3012.tro

6

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 72 Filed 04/30/13 Page 6 of 6