Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020-1/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 

JDN 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Samuel Louis Fuller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Kari Jill Granville, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-0020-PHX-DGC (JFM) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Samuel Louis Fuller brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction; Notice 

of Errata No. 1 (“Motion”). (Doc. 54.) The Court will deny the Motion. 

I. Background 

 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff named as Defendants his court-appointed 

defense attorney Granville, and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) Officers 

Hadsall, Abbott, and Alger. In its screening Order, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a 

claim of excessive force against Defendant Hadsall and dismissed the other claims and 

Defendants. (Doc. 11.) 

 In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that MCSO’s Inmate Legal Services (“ILS”), 

without his consent or direction, filed with the Court his First and Second Set of 

Interrogatories and his First Request for Admissions.1

 (Doc. 54 at 1.) Plaintiff states that 

 1

 In a prior Order, the Magistrate Judge struck those discovery requests and 

directed the filing a separate notice of service in accordance with Local Civil Rule 5.2. 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 102 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

he only requested ILS to forward copies of those documents to the Maricopa County 

Attorney’s Office and he did not instruct ILS to file them with the Court. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff acknowledges the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 47) that parties are not to file with 

the Court their disclosures or requests for disclosures, and he alleges that ILS is engaging 

in a “campaign of harassment” by filing documents he has marked as “do not file.” (Id.

at 3-4.) Plaintiff contends that ILS is conducting this campaign of harassment in concert 

with Defendant Hadsall, and that it is affecting his wherewithal to litigate the various 

civil actions he has in this Court and is causing him psychological distress. (Id. at 3-4.) 

Plaintiff asks the Court to order Rose Perry (A7879) in ILS to answer these allegations. 

(Id. at 9.) 

II. Discussion 

 As a preliminary matter, a court may issue an injunction against a non-party only 

where the non-party acts in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 65(d)(2). While Plaintiff alleges that ILS is acting in concert with Defendant 

Hadsall, he has presented no evidence of joint action between Defendant Hadsall and 

ILS, which precludes issuance of an injunction. 

 Alternatively, even if the Court could address Plaintiff’s request for relief, he fails 

to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (movant must show he is likely to succeed on the 

merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and 

that an injunction is in the public interest). First, it is not clear what relief Plaintiff seeks, 

other than a response from Perry “that she either is without or within a lawful policy of 

the State of Arizona to conduct business as only a ‘creeping thing’ would how; foxes like 

squ[i]rr[e]ls like rats even like a parrots . . . must need be subdued.” (Doc. 54 at 9.) 

Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief concerning his access to the courts,2

 he must 

 

(See Doc. 57.) 

2

 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is not related to his Fourth Amendment 

excessive force claim; however, if a preliminary injunction concerns access to the courts, 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 102 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

submit evidence showing an “actual injury” resulting from a defendant’s actions. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (the actual injury must be “actual 

prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim”). 

Plaintiff presents only a general allegation that his ability to litigate has been affected; he 

does not show that he has been unable to present a claim or that he actually missed a 

deadline. As such, he fails to allege any actual injury. 

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

Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction; Notice of Errata No. 1 (Doc. 54), and Plaintiff’s 

Preliminary Injunction; Notice of Errata No. 1 is denied. 

 Dated this 10th day of August, 2015. 

 

the merits of the underlying suit need not be considered. Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 

793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 102 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 3