Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01216/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01216-14/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENYINGMOTIONFOR INJUNCTIVERELIEF

and

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOREXTENSION

OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES

(Doc. 47)

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS DUEWITHIN30DAYS

Plaintiff James L. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 16, 2009, Plaintiff

filed a motion requesting an order from the Court directing prison officials at the California Men’s

Colony in San Louis Obispo (“CMC-SLO”) to return Plaintiff’s legal property back to him. (Doc.

#47.) Plaintiff’s motion also seeks a modification of the Court’s scheduling and discovery order.

I. Discussion

A. Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court directing warden John Marshall and his subordinates

at CMC-SLO to return Plaintiff’s legal property back to him and provide Plaintiff with fifteen (15)

hours of access to the law library per week. Plaintiff is seeking preliminary injunctive relief. The

purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily

1

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 74 Filed 05/04/10 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

27

28

favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the

merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395

(1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

“[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) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A

party seeking a preliminary injunction cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported byevidence. 

With respect to motions for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order, the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that:

[i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent

otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary

restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief.

Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no

further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires

preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

correct that harm.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an order for injunctive relief issued by

the Court may only bind: (A) the parties; (B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and

attorneys; and (C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in

(A) or (B). Here, the prison officials at CMC-SLO are not parties to this action. This action

proceeds against Defendants Ramen, Rangel, Solis, and Johnson, employees at Corcoran State

Prison, for incidents that occurred at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff offers no persuasive evidence

to suggest that the prison officials at CMC-SLO are in active concert or participation with the

Defendants in this action, aside from Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that there is an ongoing

conspiracy within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to violate Plaintiff’s

civil rights. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations, unsupported by any evidence, are not sufficient to

justify the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction. 

2

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 74 Filed 05/04/10 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

27

28

Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. See

Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (federal court may only issue injunction if

it has personal jurisdiction over the parties; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

before the court). The Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminaryinjunctive relief

be denied.

B. Modification of Scheduling and Discovery Order

Plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadlines set forth in the scheduling and discovery order. 

Plaintiff filed his motion on November 16, 2009. The deadline for the completion of all discovery

is June 9, 2010 and the deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is August 18, 2010. While

the deadline for amending the pleadings (April 9, 2010) has passed, Plaintiff has expressed no

intention to file any amended pleadings. Since requesting an extension of the discovery deadlines,

Plaintiff has filed numerous interrogatories, requests for documents, and motions to compel. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that a scheduling order can only be modified

for good cause. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992). The schedule may be modified if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

party seeking the extension. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes). It is not

yet clear that Plaintiff will be unable to meet the deadlines set forth in the scheduling and discovery

order. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for a modification of the scheduling and discovery is premature. At

the time Plaintiff filed his request for an extension, the relevant deadlines were months away. 

Plaintiff has not identified any specific discovery request, response, or motion that he is unable to

prepare within the current deadlines. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion without

prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file motions requesting extensions of time as those deadlines become

imminent.

II. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting

extension of the discovery deadlines is DENIED, without prejudice.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive

3

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 74 Filed 05/04/10 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

27

28

relief be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 74 Filed 05/04/10 Page 4 of 4