Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020-2/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 

MGD 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Samuel Louis Fuller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Kari Jill Granville, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-0020-PHX-DGC (JFM) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Samuel Louis Fuller brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 41.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Renewed Request for Issuance 

of a Subpoena to Granville: Injunction” (“Motion”). (Doc. 87.) In a prior Order, the 

Magistrate Judge addressed the portion of the Motion requesting a subpoena, and left the 

request for injunctive relief pending. (Doc. 92.) The Court will deny the request for 

injunctive relief. 

I. Background 

 In the Court’s screening Orders, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim of 

excessive force against Defendant Hadsall and dismissed the other claims and 

Defendants. (Docs. 11, 40.) In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that he is being harassed by 

MCSO “jailers.” (Doc. 87 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on July 4, 2015, he was using the 

toilet in his cell and was behind a pink bed sheet which was hung to create a sense of 

privacy. Officer B2430 was on a security walk, stopped at Plaintiff’s cell, and asked if 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 114 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Plaintiff was alright or alive. Plaintiff advised the officer that he was well. Officer 

B2430 responded that Plaintiff knew that he was “to show officer(s) his hands.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff again said that he was well. The officer then entered Plaintiff’s cell and 

removed the sheet, exposing Plaintiff. The officer said, “n[]ow you know when I tell you 

to show me your hands, you raise them.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that Officer B2430 

was aggressive toward him at all times. Plaintiff requests an injunction “because Officer 

B2430 does not work or actually position as security in pod 2B1.35 instead is stationed in 

medical MCCHS with anticipated defendant LPN Stephaine [sic] Soto . . . and this above 

incident is suspect in the manner like unto Sergeant’s Hadsall action(s) with plaintiff.” 

(Id. at 4.) 

 Plaintiff further alleges that “MCSO jailers” have barred him from the grievance 

process and have failed to respond to his grievances since May 5, 2015. Plaintiff avers he 

has “no other vehicle to address his issue as they seriously relate to his entire well being 

in custody of person(s) acting in concert with the Defendant Hadsall[.]” (Doc. 87 at 4.) 

Plaintiff states that he is “SMI” (seriously mentally ill) “and is easily threaten[ed] which 

increases p[sy]chosis.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks an injunction “against MCSO jails custody at 

all times Plaintiff’s criminal case . . . is pending and this instan[t] action is being 

litigated.” (Id. at 5.) 

II. Discussion 

 As a preliminary matter, it is not clear against whom Plaintiff seeks an injunction. 

His Motion discusses Officer B2430, who is not a Defendant in this action, and he 

requests an injunction against the “MCSO jails.” As to Officer B2430, a court may issue 

an injunction against a non-party only where the non-party acts in active concert or 

participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (a preliminary injunction 

only binds those who receive actual notice of it by personal service or are parties, their 

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert); see 

Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A federal court may issue an 

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

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 114 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

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

court.”); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 

(1969). While Plaintiff alleges that MCSO “jailers” and Officer B2430 are acting in 

concert with Defendant Hadsall, he has presented no evidence of joint action between 

Defendant Hadsall and Officer B2430, which precludes issuance of an injunction against 

Officer B2430. 

 As to the “MCSO jails,” claims under § 1983 are directed at “bodies politic and 

corporate.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Svcs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 688-89 (1978). 

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress intended municipalities and other local 

government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Id. at 

689-690. Because a jail is neither a corporation nor a body politic, it is not a “person” for 

purposes of § 1983. See, e.g., Petaway v. City of New Haven Police Dep’t, 541 F. 

Supp.2d 504 (D. Conn. 2008); Pahle v. Colebrookdale Tp., 227 F. Supp.2d 361 (E.D. Pa. 

2002). Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the 

“MCSO jails.” 

 Alternatively, even if the Court could address Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 

relief, he fails to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). First, it is not clear what relief 

Plaintiff seeks when he merely requests an injunction against the “MCSO jails” while his 

criminal case and this case are pending. As Defendant notes, Plaintiff does not say “what 

exactly is requested, i.e., don’t yell, don’t tear down privacy sheets, don’t ask for hands to 

be displayed, etc.?” (Doc. 95 at 4.) Nor has Plaintiff presented any evidence addressing 

the Winter factors. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief will be denied. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 114 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief in his “Renewed Request for Issuance of a 

Subpoena to Granville: Injunction” (Doc. 87), and Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief 

is denied. 

 Dated this 28th day of August, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 114 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 4