Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01703/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01703-1/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

WO LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronnie Lovelle Joseph, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1703-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Shortly after filing his civil rights action, Plaintiff Ronnie Lovelle Joseph filed two

motions seeking injunctive relief (Doc. ##6-7). The Court will deny the motions. 

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff brought five counts for relief in his original Complaint regarding conditions

in the Fourth Avenue Jail. The Court dismissed all counts except Count V (Doc. #8). In

Count V, Plaintiff alleged that the jail’s “unconstitutional punishment meals program”

amounted to “deliberate torture” by Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, who

imposed the program “to make sure you don’t come back [to jail]” (Doc. #1 at 6-B). Count

V did not assert that the food program violated Plaintiff’s religious beliefs or was retaliatory

in any fashion. 

Plaintiff filed two motions seeking injunctive relief. In the first, he contends that food

products containing pork are against his religious beliefs (Doc. #6). He asserts that “this”

has been happening for more than a year, but since he filed this action, the pork in his food

Case 2:06-cv-01703-SMM-MHB Document 9 Filed 10/06/06 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 -

“is clearly a retaliatory move by agents of M.C.S.O.” (Id. at 2-3). In his second motion for

injunctive relief, Plaintiff asserts that the “discriminatory brunch meals program” is

unconstitutional because pork eaters receive a variety of meat sandwiches, whereas non porkeaters receive only peanut butter, cheese and infrequently, turkey (Doc. #7 at 1-2). He

believes that he should more frequently be served non-pork meat sandwiches. Plaintiff

believes this treatment is retaliatory by staff, who has a “permanent chip against those of us

who refuse to eat pork” (Id. at 3). Neither motion clearly specifies the type of relief that

Plaintiff desires.

II. Analysis

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and will not be

granted absent a clear showing of likely success in the underlying claim and possible

irreparable injury. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam);

Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2005); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d

802, 805 (9th Cir. 1995). Alternately, a party may show that serious questions going to the

merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. Warsoldier, 418

F.3d at 994. 

An injunction is appropriate to grant intermediate relief on the same character as

which may be granted finally, and relief is not proper when requested on matters lying

wholly outside the issues in suit. DeBeers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945);

Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fl., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), amended, 131 F.3d 950

(11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). To obtain injunctive relief, the party “must necessarily

establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted

in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

Plaintiff has not established that relationship.

Neither of Plaintiff’s motions relate related to the conduct alleged in Count V. In

Count V, Plaintiff asserted that the meal program amounted to deliberate torture by Sheriff

Arpaio. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, however, claim that because his religious

beliefs do not allow him to eat pork, jail staff has retaliated against him by giving him pork

Case 2:06-cv-01703-SMM-MHB Document 9 Filed 10/06/06 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 -

and by providing fewer options for meat sandwiches than inmates who eat pork. In addition,

both of Plaintiff’s motions concern conduct by unidentified jail staff members, and the only

Defendant in this action is Sheriff Arpaio. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s requests for

injunctive relief will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. ##6-7) are

denied. 

DATED this 5th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01703-SMM-MHB Document 9 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 3