Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01351/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01351-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW LUCAS FRAZIER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-1351 GGH P

vs.

REDDING POLICE DEPT., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The gravamen of plaintiff’s second amended complaint is a claim of excessive force by

defendants Redding Police Dept. and Officers Rhoads and Zufall. Plaintiff has filed a “motion

for Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)” in which he seeks access to writing

materials, to legal research material and to his own legal property. See docket # 30. 

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

motion for a protective order because 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 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

1

Case 2:11-cv-01351-AC Document 32 Filed 02/15/12 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

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. 

As is evident, plaintiff’s claims that he is being deprived of writing and legal

materials and property and law library access does not go to the merits of his excessive force

claims. Accordingly, this matter may be handled by court order. Plaintiff claims to have been

placed in administrative segregation (ad seg) not for disciplinary reasons but because the prison

is too full. Dkt # 30. Plaintiff states that in ad seg he is only allowed five pieces of paper. Id. It

is unclear whether plaintiff is saying that “the law office officer” comes Tuesdays and Fridays or

only on Fridays to respond to requests for paper and envelopes and on Tuesdays to make copies. 

Id. Plaintiff does state that the officer says that he can only have an envelope when he has

something to send to court. Id. Plaintiff avers that he needs access to his legal work because he

must respond to defendants’ discovery requests. Id. The court notes that a Discovery and

Scheduling Order, setting the discovery and pretrial motions deadlines was filed in this case on

2

Case 2:11-cv-01351-AC Document 32 Filed 02/15/12 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

January 31, 2012. See dkt # 28. In a separate request, plaintiff makes reference to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery requests and subpeonas and asks the court clerk to

provide the discovery rules to him as well as subpoena forms. See dkt # 31. The court has

previously provided plaintiff with a copy of the Local Rules. See Order filed on December 2,

2011 (dkt # 20). Plaintiff should be able to access the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure through

the prison law library. The court will direct the court clerk to provide plaintiff with two

subpoena forms.

Because plaintiff’s access to legal supplies is apparently very limited, and he is

evidently being virtually cut off from prison law library access because he is being held in ad seg

to accommodate the prison’s administrative needs and not due to any misconduct on his part, the

court will invoke the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Usually persons or entities not parties

to an action are not subject to orders for injunctive relief. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). However, the fact one is not a party does not automatically

preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) permits the court to issue

writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and

principles of law.” See generally S.E.C. v. G.C. George Securities, Inc., 637 F.2d 685 (9th Cir.

1981); United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). This section does not

grant the court plenary power to act in any way it wishes; rather, the All Writs Act is meant to aid

the court in the exercise and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v.

Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). 

The court is concerned that it may lose its jurisdiction if plaintiff is unable to

prosecute this action because he cannot have access to his legal property and to the prison law

library at Pleasant Valley State Prison where he is presently housed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO/preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February

10, 2012 (dkt # 30), is construed as a motion for a protective order and as so construed is granted

3

Case 2:11-cv-01351-AC Document 32 Filed 02/15/12 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

to the extent that the warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison or his designee must inform this

court, within twenty-one days, if plaintiff has been denied access to his legal property and the

prison law library; if so, the court must be informed of accommodations being made to permit

plaintiff to prosecute this action. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with two blank subpoena

forms in response to plaintiff’s request, filed on February 10, 2012 (dkt # 31); the request is

otherwise denied.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order by U.S. mail

upon Acting Warden P.D. Brazelton, Pleasant Valley State Prison, P. O. Box 8500, Coalingua,

CA 93210.

DATED: February 15, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:009

fraz1351.ord2

4

Case 2:11-cv-01351-AC Document 32 Filed 02/15/12 Page 4 of 4