Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02904/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02904-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

CDCR No. P-59915,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

ORDER

v.

D. HODGE; L. ROMERO; D.

PARAMO; P. BARAMONTE; G.

VALDOVINOS; RENTERIA; C.

GARDINEZ; McGEE; SMITH,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are various Motions for Injunctive Relief (ECF Nos.

30, 33, 43, 47, 50, 52, 58, 63, 68, 70) filed by Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds.

I. Procedural Background

Antoine L. Ardds (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at the

Corcoran State Prison, located in Corcoran, California. On November 16, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Coloring Agreement,” which the Court construed

as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In the three months

after filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed the following documents: two certified copies

of his inmate trust account statement, which the Court construed as a Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Nos. 2, 15); a

Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 8); two documents titled Ex Parte Motions, which

the Court construed to be Supplemental Documents in Support of Complaint (ECF Nos.

12, 14); a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6); a Motion to Dismiss

- 1 - 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-02904-WQH-BLM Document 93 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
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

Improperly Named Defendant (ECF No. 10); and an Ex Parte Notice (ECF No. 4). 

On February 28, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis, denied the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, granted the Motion to Dismiss

an improperly named defendant, and dismissed the Complaint for failing to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 18). On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed

a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 23). On May 4, 2017, this Court

found Plaintiff’s FAC “contained factual content sufficient to survive the ‘low

threshold’ for proceeding past the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).” (ECF No. 24 at 9). 

Plaintiff has filed ten motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 30, 33, 43, 47, 50,

52, 58, 63, 68, 70) and eleven declarations in support of the requested remedial

measures (ECF Nos. 54, 60, 61, 64, 65, 76, 77, 80, 82, 88, 90) for alleged “continued

[] acts of intimidation, harassment, threats, physical assaults on disable [sic] E.O.P.

patients,” “hinderance [sic] of Plaintiff’s access to other district courts,” “failing to send

Plaintiff’s legal boxs [sic], legal mail,” (ECF No. 50 at 2,7) and improper denial of

single-cell status (ECF No. 64 at 3). On August 8, 2017 the Court ordered Defendants

to reply to six Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 30, 33, 43, 47, 50, 52) that

Plaintiff had filed at the time. (ECF No. 53). On August 28, 2017, Defendants filed a

response in opposition to the six motions for injunctive relief identified by the Court,

and one motion (ECF No. 63) filed by Plaintiff subsequent to the Court’s order. (ECF

No. 66 at 1). On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension

for his reply to Defendants’ opposition (ECF No. 73), which the Court granted on

September 19, 2017. (ECF No. 74). Plaintiff has filed additional declarations in

support of his previously filed motions (ECF Nos. 76, 77, 80, 82, 88, 90) and two

additional motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 68, 70).

On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed his reply to Defendants’ Response to his

motions for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 92). 

II. Contentions

- 2 - 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-02904-WQH-BLM Document 93 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
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

Plaintiff contends that (1) he has “been continuously harassed and denied access

to legal property” (ECF No. 30 at 1); (2) his “legal boxes at RJD, have been destroyed

per order by Defendant D. Paramo” (ECF No. 33 at 1); and (3) his four transfers since

February 2017 are a result of Defendants’ efforts to “hinder plaintiff’s access to the

courts by hiding him in other facilit[ies].” (ECF No. 50 at 13). Plaintiff further

contends that the refusal by Defendants to place him on single cell status has put him

at “substantial risk of harm from other inmates.” (ECF No. 43 at 4). Plaintiff also

makes claims about alleged assaults on inmates not party to this case and requests that

the Court order an investigation of the alleged assaults. (ECF Nos. 50, 63). Plaintiff

requests that the Court order Defendants to “release [his] legal property so that [he] may

respond to Court deadlines,” (ECF No. 33 at 2) “place him on single cell status,” (ECF

No. 43 at 4) and “rehouse [him] on a safer and constitutional [sic] secured facility.” 

(ECF No. 50 at 3). Plaintiff requests that the Court “order CDCR’s direct [sic]

secretary, Scott Kernan to conduct an adequate investigation into the assault and battery

upon inmates Dion Terrell . . . and K. Flemmings.” Id. at 10. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements for injunctive

intervention by the Court. (ECF No. 66 at 2). Specifically, Defendants contend that

Plaintiff has not established “a likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying

claim,” a “ risk of irreparable injury if his motions are not granted,” or “the balance of

hardships that would result if his motions are denied tip in his favor.” Id. at 2. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s various requests for injunctive relief are “overly

broad, vague, and based on speculation.” Id. at 4. Defendants support this contention

by offering the docket reports for cases currently being litigated by Plaintiff in other

courts. Defendants assert the docket reports establish that Plaintiff has not been denied

access to legal materials or access to the courts. Id. at 5. Defendants contend that

Plaintiff has not provided any “evidence that he meets the criteria for single-cell status.” 

Id. at 6. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has provided only “vague assertions” that he

is unsafe at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) and that without any

- 3 - 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-02904-WQH-BLM Document 93 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
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

concrete evidence or allegation of specific facts, “it is difficult for Defendants to submit

evidence to counter Plaintiff’s vague assertions.” Id. at 6. Lastly, Defendants contend

that “the Court cannot issue orders to defense counsel or outside agencies to conduct

investigations with regard to inmates that are not party to this case.” Id. at 10. 

III. Legal Standard

Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). When

the nonmovant has received notice, as here, the standard for issuing a temporary

restraining order is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg

Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). 

To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a movant 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. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008);

see also Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). 

At a minimum, “the moving party must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable

injury.” Arcamuzi v. Cont’l Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation

omitted). “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable

harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary

remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to

such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

A. Access to Legal Materials

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). This right “requires prison authorities to assist inmates in

the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with

adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds

v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977); see also Phillips v. Hurst, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th

Cir. 2009).

- 4 - 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-02904-WQH-BLM Document 93 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
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

To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts a prisoner must allege

facts sufficient to show that: (1) a nonfrivolous legal attack on his conviction, sentence,

or conditions of confinement has been frustrated or impeded, and (2) he has suffered an

actual injury as a result. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353-55; Christopher v. Harbury, 536

U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (to state an access to courts violation, plaintiff must describe the

non-frivolous nature of the “underlying cause of action, whether anticipated or lost”). 

The prisoner must demonstrate that he has suffered or will imminently suffer actual

injury. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348. Delays in providing legal materials or assistance that

result in actual injury are “not of constitutional significance” if “they are the product of

prison regulations reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Id. at 362.

In this case, the fact that Plaintiff has a pending “non-frivolous” civil action

which raises a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his confinement does not

entitle him to a preliminary injunction. See James v. Emmens, Case No.: 3:16-cv02823-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017). To meet the “irreparable harm”

requirement, Plaintiff must do more than simply allege imminent harm; he must

demonstrate it. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th

Cir. 1988). Plaintiff must provide specific facts demonstrating that he faces a credible

threat of immediate and irreparable harm, unless an injunction issues. Fed. R. Civ. P.

65(b). “Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant

granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine Servs, Co., Inc., 844 F.2d at

674-75. 

Plaintiff claims he has been “continuously harassed and denied access to legal

property,” (ECF No. 30 at 1), that his “legal boxes at RJD, [were] destroyed per order

by Defendant D. Paramo,” (ECF No. 33 at 1), and that unspecified persons have

“fail[ed] to send [his] legal boxs [sic], legal mail, [and are] keep[ing] outgoing legal

correspondence from the courts.” (ECF No. 50 at 7). Plaintiff fails to identify the nature

of the materials, the relevance of the materials to his pending litigation, or “actual

prejudice with respect to [his] existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing

- 5 - 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-02904-WQH-BLM Document 93 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
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

deadline or to present a claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348. 

Defendants request judicial notice of the dockets in three district court cases that

Plaintiff is currently litigating. (ECF No. 66-1). A court “‘may take notice of

proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d

1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2

(9th Cir. 2002)) (alterations in original). Accordingly, this Court takes judicial notice

of docket proceedings in Ardds v. Pizano, et al., Northern Dist. Cal. Civil Case No.

3:15-cv-00686-JCS, Ardds v. Pizano, et al., Northern Dist. Cal. Civil Case No. 5:16-cv01389-EJD, and Ardds v. Constancio, et al., Eastern Dist. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:17-cv00679-EFB. (ECF No. 66-1 at 4-25). The docket in each of these proceedings indicates

that Plaintiff is actively litigating each case. Plaintiff’s claims of denied access to legal

materials are general and Plaintiff does not offer evidence of a specific period during

which he was denied access to legal materials. 

Plaintiff also alleges that “[d]efendants continue to hinder plaintiff’s access to

courts by hiding him in other facilit[ies] with the agreement of fellow wardens to delay

all legal mail process.” (ECF No. 50 at 13). While Plaintiff has been transferred to

several different prisons within California since he first commenced this action, 

Plaintiff fails to provide facts indicating that these transfers were retaliatory. In fact,

Plaintiff’s motions indicate that Plaintiff sought a transfer from RJD. Plaintiff

requested a protective order or transfer because “defendants are trying to keep me

housed at RJD, even upon their acknowledgment of the substantial risk of harm,” (ECF

No. 52 at 3), and because he was not “getting [the] mental health services” he required.

(ECF No. 60 at 2).1

Plaintiff fails to offer sufficient evidence to establish that the transfers or alleged

destruction of legal materials significantly hindered his ability to litigate claims before

1

 Plaintiff is currently housed in California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR). The Court concludes that any request to transfer from RJD is moot. 

- 6 - 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-02904-WQH-BLM Document 93 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
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

the Court. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish a threat of

irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits with regard to access to legal

materials. Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief related to his legal materials are

denied. 

B. Single-cell Status

Plaintiff claims the failure of defendants and other parties not named in this case

to grant him single-cell status has created “a substantial risk of harm from other inmates

placed in his cell.” (ECF No. 43 at 4). Although Plaintiff need not wait for an injurious

event to occur to seek injunctive relief, Plaintiff has not shown a real or immediate

threat of retaliation or injury. Cf. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (stating

that it “would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe,

life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet has happened

to them”).

In his FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used Plaintiff’s cellmate as “an

instrument of attack to harm Plaintiff.” (FAC at 7). Plaintiff alleges his cellmate

“attempted to carry out an assault under the influence of speed or heroin.” Id. at 20.

Plaintiff asserts it was a “failed attempt.” Id. This alleged incident at a facility in which

Plaintiff is not currently housed does not amount to an immediate threat of irreparable

harm warranting injunctive relief. Plaintiff is not currently housed at RJD. (ECF No.

85). The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s request for single-cell status at RJD is moot. 

See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that when an inmate has

been released from custody or transferred to another prison and there is no reasonable

expectation or demonstrated probability that he will again be subjected to the conditions

from which he seeks injunctive relief, his claim for injunctive relief should be dismissed

as moot). The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief granting him singlecell status. 

C. Claims Regarding Other Inmates

Plaintiff alleges that “[f]or the last year defendants L. Romero, G. Valdovinos,

- 7 - 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-02904-WQH-BLM Document 93 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
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

A. Renteria, W. Smith, S. McGee, C. Gardinez, and D. Hodge have continued their

assaults upon ‘C’ yard’s E.O.P. mentally disabled inmate population” and that “each

[defendant] has continued their acts of intimidation, harassment, threats, physical

assaults on disabled E.O.P. patients.” (ECF No. 50 at 6, 7). Plaintiff requests that the

Court order an “investigat[ion] into the assault and battery upon [other] inmates . . . who

were victims of unnecessary use of force. (ECF No. 50 at 10). 

A federal court’s jurisdiction can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has

suffered “some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action.” 

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). The court may not determine the rights of

persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229,

234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A federal court

may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter

jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

before the court.”). 

In this case, Plaintiff requests relief for prisoners not party to this action in

relation to alleged actions by prison officials not party to this action. The Court lacks

jurisdiction to determine the rights of individuals not party to this case. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 30, 33, 43, 47,

50, 52, 58, 63, 68, and 70) for injunctive relief are DENIED. 

DATED: November 22, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 8 - 16cv2904-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-02904-WQH-BLM Document 93 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8