Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01159/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01159-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barry Northcross Patterson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1159-PHX-RCB (MHB)

ORDER

Plaintiff Barry Northcross Patterson brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Chaplains Broderick and Mason

(Doc. 106). Before the Court are Plaintiff’s two motions requesting injunctive relief (Docs.

99, 103).

The Court will deny both motions.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement at the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, in Florence, Arizona (Doc. 106). In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff

alleged that Broderick and Mason violated his First Amendment right of free exercise of

religion and his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (id. at 3-3A). Plaintiff claimed that Defendants

denied him kosher meals even though he is a Messianic Jew eligible for a kosher diet under

ADC regulations (id.). 

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 111 Filed 10/13/10 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

- 2 -

II. Plaintiff’s Motions

On July 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed his Request for an Injunction (Doc. 99). In this

motion, Plaintiff states that between February 8 and March 2, 2010, he filed eight grievances

at the Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF), where he is currently housed (id. at 1;

see Doc. 83). Plaintiff alleges that the CACF staff refused to process his grievances (Doc. 99

at 1). He asserts that on March 24, 2010, he submitted Director-level appeals on each of

these grievances; however, they were all returned in his mailbox two days later with no

explanation (id.). Plaintiff further alleges that in July 2010, after Plaintiff informed

Correctional Officer Burke that he was going to file a grievance about her interference with

his attempt to notarize legal documents, Burke placed Plaintiff in lockdown for a week (id.

at 1-2). Plaintiff states that he should not be required to exhaust grievances when he is

subjected to this type of abuse (id.). For relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court take “action

now” and make a declaratory finding that the grievance system is broken (id.).

In their response, Defendants construe Plaintiff’s motion as a request for the Court to

enjoin CACF staff to process his eight grievances (Doc. 101). Defendants argue that

Plaintiff’s motion is unrelated to the claims in this action and it does not concern conduct

related to Defendants (id. at 1-2). They further argue that Plaintiff makes conclusory

statements and provides no evidence to support his claims; thus, he cannot satisfy the factors

for a preliminary injunction (id. at 2). Defendants note that the ADC grievance policy, which

is used at CACF, includes provisions that address “unprocessed” grievances and, without

more from Plaintiff, these provisions should address his concerns (id. at 3). Defendants

conclude that Plaintiff’s motion is frivolous and should be denied (id.).

In lieu of a reply memorandum, Plaintiff filed a second motion entitled “Motion to

Separate Plaintiff’s Recent Request for an Injunction (Doc. 99) From this Case & Accept as

a Stand-Alone Request for an Injunction” (Doc. 103). The assertions in this motion are not

entirely clear; Plaintiff states that he has limited legal knowledge, and that he sent the

previous request “tied to this case for reasons that appear to be simply wrong” (id. at 1). He

asks that the Court accept his request for injunctive relief in whatever manner possible to be

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 111 Filed 10/13/10 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

- 3 -

legal (id.).

III. Preliminary Injunction

A. Legal Standard

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” that may be granted only where

the movant shows 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,

Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 376 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559

F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The movant has the burden of proof on each element of the

test. Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).

A court may not issue an injunction against individuals who are not parties to a suit

pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110

(1969). Further, a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must necessarily establish a

relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the

complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (Eighth Amendment

claim cannot provide basis for preliminary injunction against alleged acts in retaliation for

filing claim); see also Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997). 

B. Analysis

As argued by Defendants, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against CACF

staff—who are not defendants—appears unrelated to the claims at issue in this action. See

Devose, 42 F.3d at 471. The only claims to be litigated are those alleging First Amendment

and RLUIPA violations (see Doc. 109 at 2). Plaintiff does not indicate whether the eight

grievances that CACF staff refused to process pertained to religious issues. Regardless,

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was just recently docketed and there is no pending

exhaustion argument (see Doc. 106). 

Plaintiff does not clearly articulate the specific relief he seeks. Moreover, he wholly

fails to address any of the preliminary-injunction factors in either of his two motions. To the

extent that Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Court that the CACF grievance system is

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 111 Filed 10/13/10 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

- 4 -

inadequate, such a request for relief is too broad to properly incorporate into a preliminary

injunction, which must be “narrowly drawn [and] extend no further than necessary to correct

the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Finally,

a motion for a preliminary injunction is not the proper avenue for adding a claim or for

bringing a new action, if that is the relief Plaintiff seeks in his second “Motion to Separate”

his injunction request from this case (see Doc. 103).

For these reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for an injunction and his

motion to separate that request from the case.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Request for

an Injunction (Doc. 99) and Motion to Separate Plaintiff’s Recent Request for an Injunction

From this Case (Doc. 103).

(2) Plaintiff’s Request for an Injunction (Doc. 99) and Motion to Separate Plaintiff’s

Recent Request for an Injunction From this Case (Doc. 103) are both denied.

DATED this 13th day of October, 2010.

Copies to counsel and plaintiff, pro se

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 111 Filed 10/13/10 Page 4 of 4