Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02141/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02141-0/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

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

/

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02141-AWI-DLB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 3)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN

TWENTY DAYS

Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff Marcus R. Ellington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his

complaint on December 9, 2009. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief, filed concurrently with his complaint. (Doc. 3.)

Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the settlement in Plata v. Davis, No. C-01-1351-TEH (N.

D. Cal.) against the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”), doctors Patel and Giang, Chief Medical Officer Lopez, and Warden K. Harrington.

(Pl.’s Mot. 1.) Plaintiff seeks the return of his disability status, which he claims was improperly

denied pursuant to Armstrong. (Pl.’s Mot. 2.) Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction for a

1

wheelchair, walker, grab bars in his cell, double mattress, cotton blankets, and waist chain chrono.

The Court assumes that Plaintiff refers to the settlement agreement reached in Armstrong v. Davis, No.

1

CV-94-02307-CW (N. D. Cal.). That agreement pertained to prisoners who qualified under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act who were improperly denied rights during parole. Armstrong

v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2002).

1

Case 1:09-cv-02141-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 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

(Pl.’s Mot. 3.)

Plaintiff appears to contend that he is a member of the Plata class action and seeks

enforcement of its settlement terms. A plaintiff who is a member of a class action for equitable

relief from prison conditions may not maintain a separate, individual suit for equitable relief within

the same subject matter of the class action. See McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165-66

(10th Cir. 1991) (“Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from unconstitutional prison

conditions cannot be brought where there is an existing class action”); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858

F.2d 1101, 1103, 5th Cir. 1988 (en banc) (“To allow individual suits would interfere with the

orderly administration of the class action and risk inconsistent adjudications.”); Crawford v. Bell,

599 F.2d 890, 892-93 (9th Cir. 1979) (district court may dismiss individual plaintiff’s claims

where plaintiff is member of pending class action raising same claims); see also Stringham v. Lee,

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56031, * 19-20, 2008 WL 2880406 *7, 10 (E.D. Cal. 2008); cf. McNeil,

945 F.2d at 1166 (recognizing two exceptions to class action comity rule: claims for monetary

damages and claims “not being litigated within the boundaries of the class action”). Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief, filed December 9, 2009, should be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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: March 1, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-02141-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2