Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02455/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02455-3/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS RIOS,

CDCR #E-52249,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2455-WQHJMA

ORDER

vs.

D. PARAMO; R. BLAHNICK;

K. BALAKIAN; B. CROTTS;

B. MILLUM; A. HERNANDEZ;

R. OLSON; J. RAMIREZ, 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are: (1) the review of the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 36) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler,

recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) be denied;

and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Injunction (ECF No. 52).

I. Background

On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff Carlos Rios, currently incarcerated at Richard J.

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), commenced this action by filing a Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (ECF No. 1) and a motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) in this Court. The Complaint asserted claims for violations

- 1 - 13cv2455-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 67 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 7
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

of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. On March 25, 2014, the Court

granted the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the Complaint for

failure to state a claim, and granted Plaintiff forty-five days to file a First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 5).

On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed the FAC, which is the operative complaint in

this case. (ECF No. 9). The FAC asserts claims for violations of the First, Sixth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and violations of the Americans with Disabilities

Act and Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants required him to choose

between outdoor exercise and attending the law library. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants refused him the reasonable accommodation of placement in a

developmental disability program, which includes legal assistance. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants retaliated against him for complaining about these issues by charging him

with a false “128-B general chrono” on August 8, 2013, and that the appeals coordinator

did not properly process his inmate appeals. Id. at 9-10. On November 24, 2014,

Defendants filed an answer to the FAC. (ECF No. 18). To date, no scheduling order

has been issued by the Magistrate Judge.

On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 32). On March 20, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued the Report and

Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiffs’s Motion for Summary Judgment be

denied. (ECF No. 36). The docket reflects that neither party has filed objections to the

Report and Recommendation.

On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 52), which requests the Court 

issue an order enjoining Defendants from engaging in an “ongoing campaign of

interference/obstruction/restrict/seizure, or deprivation of Plaintiff’s incoming

‘privileged mail’” from this Court. Id. at 1. On May 29, 2015, Defendants filed an

opposition. (ECF No. 60). On June 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 65).

- 2 - 13cv2455-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 67 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 7
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

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36)

The duties of the district court in connection with the report and recommendation

of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (emphasis added). The district court need not review de

novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows

by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:

(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;

(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or

(3) issue any other appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). “Although Rule 56(f) facially gives judges the discretion

to disallow discovery when the non-moving party cannot yet submit evidence

supporting its opposition, the Supreme Court has restated the rule as requiring, rather

than merely permitting, discovery ‘where the nonmoving party has not had the

opportunity to discover information that is essential to its opposition.’”1

 Metabolife

Intern., Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 846 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986)).

After review of the Report and Recommendation and all related filings, the Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Motion for Summary

1

 Effective December 2010, “Subdivision (d) carries forward without substantial

change the provisions of former subdivision (f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s note (2010).

- 3 - 13cv2455-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 67 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 7
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

Judgment should be denied as premature. Discovery has not yet commenced in this

case, and a scheduling order has not yet been issued. The Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety. The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

III. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF

No. 52)

A. Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order enjoining Defendants from

engaging in an “ongoing campaign of interference/obstruction/restrict/seizure, or

deprivation of Plaintiff's incoming ‘privileged mail’ from this Court.” (ECF No. 52 at

1). Plaintiff contends that Defendants have intentionally interfered with his legal mail

and they will likely continue to do so. Plaintiff contends that he has and will suffer

injury when he is unable to receive notice of Court proceedings and deadlines.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

and Preliminary Injunction should be denied because Plaintiff has failed to show he has

suffered any injury that provides a basis for injunctive relief. Defendants assert that

there is “simply no evidence that Plaintiff’s mail is being interfered with....” (ECF No.

60 at 4). Defendants contend that RJD’s mail logs contradict Plaintiff’s claims and that

Plaintiff has received all the legal mail sent from this Court.

In reply, Plaintiff contends that he has failed to receive multiple court documents

and that many of the documents that RJD’s legal mail log shows he received were from

another district court case. 

B. Discussion

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(a)(1) The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the

adverse party....

(b)(1) The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: 

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint

clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can

- 4 - 13cv2455-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 67 Filed 07/24/15 Page 4 of 7
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

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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) & (b)(1). When the nonmovant has received notice, as here,

the standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is the same as that for issuing a

preliminary injunction. See Brown Jordan Int'l v. Mind's Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F.

Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., v. Hughes

Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). “[A] preliminary injunction

is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the

movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong,

520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotation omitted) (emphasis in original).

To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a movant must show “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.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20

(2008); see also Am. Trucking Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th

Cir. 2009). “‘[S]erious 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.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632

F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th

Cir. 2012). In other words, “a stronger showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might

offset a lesser showing of likelihood of success on the merits.” Cottrell, 632 F.3d at

1131. 

At a minimum, “the moving party must demonstrate a significant threat of

irreparable injury.” Arcamuzi v. Cont'l Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir.

1987) (citation omitted). “[A]n injunction cannot issue merely because it is possible

that there will be an irreparable injury to the plaintiff; it must be likely that there will

- 5 - 13cv2455-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 67 Filed 07/24/15 Page 5 of 7
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

be.” Am. Trucking Ass'n, 559 F.3d at 1052. “Issuing a preliminary injunction based

only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of

injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. If the

moving party fails to meet the “minimum showing” of a likelihood of irreparable injury,

a court “need not decide whether [the movant] is likely to succeed on the merits.” 

Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985).

Plaintiff contends that defendants have intentionally interfered with his legal mail

delivery, but Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence that supports this contention. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff has asserted a possibility of future injury, but has not provided

any evidence which “demonstrate[s] that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of

an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (emphasis in original). 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not “demonstrate[d] immediate threatened

injury,” which is a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief. Caribbean Marine

Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). Because Plaintiff has failed

to meet its burden of demonstrating that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an

injunction, the Court “need not decide whether [Plaintiff] is likely to succeed on the

merits.” 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. 

Because the [plaintiff] has not made that minimum showing we need not decide whether

it is likely to succeed on the merits.”) (citations omitted); see also Arcamuzi, 819 F.2d

at 937 (same).

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

is denied. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36) 

is adopted in its in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32)

is DENIED.

- 6 - 13cv2455-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 67 Filed 07/24/15 Page 6 of 7
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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 52) is DENIED.

DATED: July 24, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 7 - 13cv2455-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 67 Filed 07/24/15 Page 7 of 7