Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

H. A. RIOS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE No. 1:09-cv-00781-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

(ECF No. 80)

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Donte Rolando Harris, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

civil rights action on April 27, 2009 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). (ECF No. 1.)

This action arose while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

Institution - Atwater, California (“FCI Atwater”) and proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second

1

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 87 Filed 04/17/13 Page 1 of 7
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

Amended Complaint against Defendants Gonzaga, Cobb, Zaragoza, and Valero for

interfering with incoming mail and against Defendant Cobb for interfering with outgoing

mail in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment; and against Defendants

Estrada, Cobb, Valero, and Zaragoza for violating Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment

due process rights in connection with his mail. Defendants filed their Answer on

October 25, 2012. (ECF No. 69.) This matter is in the discovery phase.

Plaintiff propounded requests for admissions and production of documents in

November 2012, and, receiving no responses, filed a Motion to Compel Discovery

Dispute Resolution in January 2013. (ECF No. 74.) Counsel for Defendants filed

opposition to the Motion stating the discovery responses had been served. (ECF No.

75.) Plaintiff then requested the Court dismiss his Motion. (ECF No. 76.) On February

22, 2013 the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

Dispute Resolution. (ECF No. 77.) 

Plaintiff, now incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution - Terre Haute,

Indiana (“FCI Terre Haute”) contends non-party Bureau of Prisons staff members K.

Sierveld and T. Coleman, have not delivered the discovery responses and are

improperly in contact with defense counsel in this action regarding “unauthorized

content” in the discovery responses. (ECF No 81, at 1.)

Plaintiff filed Partial Objections (ECF No. 82) to the Court’s February 22, 2013

Order on grounds BOP staff at FCI Terre Haute had not delivered the subject discovery

responses to him. On March 18, 2013, the Court construed his Partial Objection as a

motion for reconsideration and denied it. (ECF No. 83.) 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

2

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 87 Filed 04/17/13 Page 2 of 7
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

and Other Injunctive Relief filed on March 4, 2013. (ECF No. 80.) Therein Plaintiff seeks

an order enjoining defense counsel from any further contact with K. Sierveld and T.

Coleman and other BOP staff and requiring staff provide the discovery responses to

him. Defendants have not filed any opposition. The time for doing so has expired. Local

Rule 230(l). 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy,

never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22

(2008). To prevail, the party seeking injunctive relief must show either “(1) a likelihood

of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of

serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the

moving party's] favor.” Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc.,

762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula

International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,

461 U.S. 95, 101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury).

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires that the court find the “relief

[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of

the federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

the federal right.”

Injunctive relief should be used “sparingly, and only . . . in clear and plain

case[s].” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976).

3

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 87 Filed 04/17/13 Page 3 of 7
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

III. ANALYSIS

A. No Relief Against Non-Parties

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named defendants

in this action and over whom the Court has no personal jurisdiction. 

“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.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). The attorney of a party, and those acting in

concert with a party, may be bound by an injunction issued against the party pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Regal Knitwear Co., v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14,

(1945); Golden State Bottling Co., Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 414 U.S. 168, 178 (1973). 

However, Rule 65 does not confer personal jurisdiction where it otherwise is lacking.

Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church and State v. City and County of Denver,

628 F.2d 1289, 1299 (10th Cir. 1980). “Having a relationship to an enjoined party of the

sort set forth in Rule 65(d) exposes a non-party to contempt for assisting the party to

violate the injunction, but does not justify granting injunctive relief against the non-party

in its separate capacity.” Federal Trade Com’n v. Productive Marketing, Inc., 136

F.Supp.2d 1096, 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2001), citing Additive Controls & Measurement

Systems, Inc., v. Flowdata, Inc., 96 F.3d 1390, 1395-96 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the injunctive relief sought on this motion. 

B. No Basis for Injunctive Relief

1. No Case or Controversy

4

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 87 Filed 04/17/13 Page 4 of 7
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

Plaintiff’s concerns with the way BOP staff is processing the discovery responses

are unrelated to the case and controversy before the Court in this action. The Court has

no power to reach Plaintiff’s concerns because they are not part of any cognizable

claim before it. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and

State Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982).

2. No Irreparable Harm

Even if Plaintiff’s concerns regarding BOP’s processing of discovery responses

mailed to him were properly before the Court, he fails to demonstrate irreparable harm

entitling him to injunctive relief. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–102

(1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury, and “past exposure to

illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive

relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present, adverse effects.”). 

It is unclear why the discovery responses have not been delivered to him, or

whether he was given or has exercised any process to challenge the BOP’s processing

of the discovery responses (e.g., through the inmate appeal and staff complaint

process), and any results thereof. BOP staff may have a penologic purpose in their

processing the content of the discovery responses.

Plaintiff asserts that contact between BOP staff and defense counsel regarding

the discovery responses gives rise to a “conflict of interest” because “Defendants are

BOP employees”. However, Plaintiff provides no factual or legal basis for claiming a

conflict of interest which interferes with Plaintiff’s enforceable rights. Moreover, no facts

are presented to indicate that Plaintiff is in fact harmed by communications between the

BOP staff and defendants. 

5

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 87 Filed 04/17/13 Page 5 of 7
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

Plaintiff does not explain the nature and content of any discussion between BOP

staff and defense counsel. It is unclear why such speech would be unprotected by the

First Amendment, see Multimedia Holdings Corp., v. Circuit Court of Florida, St. Johns

County, 544 U.S. 1301, 1306 (2005) (procedures designed to chill expression can

constitute a prior restraint), and that such discussion is not reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). 

Finally, Plaintiff does not show that delay in receiving the discovery responses

has harmed him. Action on this motion is without prejudice to his seeking available relief

if the delay does in fact adversely affect his pursuit of this litigation.

3. Balance of Hardships Not in Plaintiff’s Favor 

Given the foregoing findings, the balance of hardships can not favor Plaintiff. 

The failure of BOP staff to deliver the discovery responses to Plaintiff may justify

other action by Plaintiff against that staff, but not against Defendants in this litigation

who reportedly have done what they were required to do with regard to this discovery.

Absent the existence of exceptional circumstances not present here, the Court

will not intervene in the day-to-day management of prisons. See e.g., Overton v.

Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison officials entitled to substantial deference);

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995) (disapproving the involvement of

federal courts in the day-to-day-management of prisons). 

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

It appears Defendants have complied with their discovery responsibilities. 

Plaintiff’s Motion seeks injunctive relief against only non-parties, without any

underlying case or controversy, irreparable harm, or balance of hardships favoring him.

6

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 87 Filed 04/17/13 Page 6 of 7
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

Such injunctive relief is not available in this action. 

Even if Plaintiff had sought to enjoin Defendants from communicating with BOP

staff, his request for injunctive relief would be denied, primarily because it is unclear

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and he has identified no harm accruing to him

that the Court can relieve. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order and Other Injunctive Relief filed on March 4, 2013 (ECF

No. 80) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

12eob4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 87 Filed 04/17/13 Page 7 of 7