Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01821/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01821-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS REAL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-1821 GGH P

vs.

JALAL SOLTANIAN-ZADEH, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order, the court has found the first amended complaint appropriate

for service upon the defendants named therein, including A. Kettelhake. The gravamen of the

first amended complaint is that defendants have been deliberately indifferent to a serious medical

condition from which plaintiff suffers in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

On December 12, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or a

temporary restraining order, alleging that after he “very recently” saw one of the defendants for

his medical condition, this defendant, Kettelhake, stated “oh, I see that you[’re] suing me,”

shortly after which plaintiff was put before a committee and placed on a transfer list from Mule

Creek State Prison (MCSP). See Motion at docket # 10. Although plaintiff has neglected to sign

a declaration under penalty of perjury, he includes an exhibit which forms the basis for his claim

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 12/13/11 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

2

that he was granted a hardship transfer to MCSP in 2005. Plaintiff alleges that his placement on

a transfer list is wholly retaliatory for his having brought this lawsuit. 

The court construes plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief as a motion for a

protective order. Local Rule 72-302 of the Eastern District of California permits magistrate

judges to handle all aspects of a prisoner’s case short of jury trial. It has also been interpreted as

authorizing magistrate judges to issue orders under § 636(b)(1)(A) for non-dispositive motions or

motions not involving injunctive relief. See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673,

100 S. Ct. 2406, 2411 (1980) (magistrate judge may hear any pretrial matter except “dispositive”

motions).

 Therefore, the fact that parties are directed in their activities by a magistrate judge

cannot, without more, transform the matter at hand into an “injunctive” relief matter governed by 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). See, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir.

1991) (magistrate judge may compel a party to pay prospective sanctions of $500.00 per day

during period of non-compliance with discovery orders to ensure compliance). It is only when

the “injunctive” relief sought goes to the merits of plaintiff’s actions or to complete stays of an

action that orders under § 636(b)(1)(A) are precluded. See, e.g., Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d

414 (9th Cir. 1992).

Pursuant to Section 636, Title 28, United States Code, magistrate judges may

determine any pretrial matter unless it is “dispositive” to the action, see United States v. Raddatz,

447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S. Ct. 2406 (1980), or seeks injunctive relief of the same character as that

which may be finally granted by the action, see De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United

States, 325 U.S. 212, 219-200, 65 S.Ct. 1130 (1945). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

 A proper motion for injunctive relief must relate to the allegations of the

complaint and seek an outcome that may ultimately be available in the action. If there is no such

relation, injunctive relief is not properly sought. “[T]he purpose and effect of the injunction is to

provide security for performance of a future order which may be entered by the court.” De Beers

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 12/13/11 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

3

Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 219-220, 65 S.Ct. 1130 (1945). “Thus,

a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the

injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v.

Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.1994) (affirming district court’s order denying without

hearing plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction on the ground that it had “nothing to do with

preserving the district court’s decision-making power over the merits of [plaintiff’s] 42 U.S.C. §

1983 lawsuit”) (citation omitted); cf., State of New York v. United States Metals Refining Co.,

771 F.2d 796, 801 (3rd Cir. 1985) (affirming district court’s order granting preliminary

injunction because relief requested was also available to the court pursuant to final judgment,

making the distinction that “this is not a case where the preliminary injunction ‘deals with a

matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit,’ De Beers, 325 U.S. at 200 []”). Rule 65,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing requests for injunctive relief, underscores this

relevance requirement, pursuant to provisions allowing the hearing on preliminary injunction to

be accelerated into a trial on the merits, preserving the right to jury trial if otherwise appropriate,

and making evidence received at the hearing on preliminary injunction admissible at trial. None

of these provisions would make sense if disputes outside the complaint, and on which no trial

will be had, could be considered as proceedings for injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, since matters appropriate for injunctive relief (and therefore

expressly outside the dispositive authority of the magistrate judge) are limited to the merits of an

action, see, e.g., Reynaga v. Camisa, 971 F.2d at 416 (orders pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(A) may not

include “motions for injunctive relief”), it follows that improperly denominated requests for

injunctive relief, addressing matters extraneous to the complaint, may be addressed and finally

determined by the magistrate judge. Such matters typically filed by plaintiff/prisoners attempt to

have the court regulate every term and condition of their confinement simply because they are “in

court,” regardless of the relation of the currently challenged activity to the claims set forth in the

complaint. 

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 12/13/11 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

4

As is evident, an allegation of a retaliatory pending transfer does not go to the

merits of claims of inadequate medical care. Accordingly, this matter may be handled by court

order. However, before ruling on the motion, the court will consider the response of the state

Attorney General’s Office and of defendant Kettelhake as well as that of any defendant named in

the first amended complaint who may be a member of the committee referenced in the motion

who placed plaintiff on the transfer list. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Attorney General and pertinent defendants, as set forth above, must file a

response to plaintiff’s motion for a TRO/preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 12,

2011 (docket # 10), construed as a motion for a protective order, within fourteen (14) days of the

date of this order.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of plaintiff’s motion at

docket # 10, a copy of the order at docket # 11, and a copy of the instant order upon Monica

Anderson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General electronically and to serve the same three

documents by mail upon the litigation coordinator and defendant Kettelhake at Mule Creek State

Prison.

DATED: December 13, 2011

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:009

real1821.ord

Case 2:11-cv-01821-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 12/13/11 Page 4 of 4