Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00006/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00006-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Richard Penn, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0006-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald Williams brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against various employees of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). (Doc. #1.)

Plaintiff moves for a Court Order to the Director of ADC to maintain a videotape of an

incident involving the use of force on or about June 17, 2009. (Doc. #80.) The Court will

construe this as a request for a Preliminary Injunction. Although Defendants have not

responded, the Court finds that no response is necessary.

 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

I. Background

The present case involves an alleged denial of medical care to Plaintiff in 2006 and

an alleged violation of the right to privacy in his medical records arising from an incident that

occurred on or about June 21, 2006. (Doc. #44 at 8.) The remaining claim is for declaratory

relief on Count II, the Fourteenth Amendment claim against Penn for invasion of privacy.

(Doc. #55.) 

Case 2:07-cv-00006-MHM Document 83 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

II. Preliminary Injunction

 To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party 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. Nat’l Resources Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374

(2008); Am. Trucking Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009).

The moving party has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Envtl. Council of

Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). A request for a TRO is

governed by the same general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox. Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n. 2 (1977); Los

Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 A district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not

of the same character and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in suit.

Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), amended, 131

F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). 

Plaintiff seeks relief that is unrelated to the allegations in the present case; the Court

will not issue the requested relief. See id. The Court notes that if Plaintiff brings a claim

regarding the use of force, when an “adverse party retains possession of key elements of

proof, . . .[t]he presumptions and sanctions available to punish those who alter or destroy

evidence must be considered sufficient to deter any misconduct and a party is no doubt aware

that its handling of the materials may come under intense scrutiny.” Graham v.

Teledyne-Continental Motors, 805 F.2d 1386, 1390 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing e.g., Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37; Bowmar Instrument Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 25 Fed. R. Serv.2d 423, 427

(N.D. Ind. 1977) (sanctions appropriate where party destroyed evidence it should have

known would be relevant in future litigation).

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00006-MHM Document 83 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order (Doc. #80), and the motion is denied.

DATED this 15th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-00006-MHM Document 83 Filed 01/19/10 Page 3 of 3