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 1

Because the Court via separate order has remanded all claims concerning non-DOC defendants to state court (see Order

Remanding Claims Against Private Parties to State Court, dated the same date herewith), only DOC defendants remain in this

case. Accordingly, the term “defendants” as used herein, refers only to the DOC defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ALLAN PARMELEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA CARTER, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5646RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

REGARDING SPECIAL MAIL

RESTRICTIONS

This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§

636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates’ Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. This matter

comes before the court on plaintiff’s filing of a motion to order all parties and the Court to comply with

defendants’ special mail restrictions or bar restrictions. (Dkt. #26). Having reviewed plaintiff’s motion and

the remaining record, the undersigned submits the following Report and Recommendation for the

Honorable Ronald B. Leighton’s review. 

DISCUSSION

In his motion, plaintiff argues the State of Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”)

defendants (“defendants”)1 have been applying a selective, arbitrary and capricious policy at the institution

Case 3:05-cv-05646-RBL Document 61 Filed 04/19/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

where he is currently incarcerated, which requires a prisoner’s full name and prisoner number to be placed

on all enclosures contained in mail sent to that prisoner. Plaintiff asserts defendants have been using this

policy as a pretext to obstructing selected prisoner mail, and that access to his mail has been both delayed

and restricted. He seeks an order requiring defendants and the Court to comply with the mail restrictions

policy or bar defendants from enforcing those restrictions with respect to items that are not specifically

identified in that policy. 

In essence, therefore, plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief from the Court regarding the application

of this policy. The basic function of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo ante litem

pending a determination of the action on the merits. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com'n v. National

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). A party seeking injunctive relief must fulfill either

of two standards, the “traditional” or the “alternative”:

Under the traditional standard, a court may issue injunctive relief if it finds that (1)

the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied; (2) the moving

party will probably prevail on the merits; (3) the balance of potential harm favors the

moving party; and (4) the public interest favors granting relief. . . . Under the

alternative standard, the moving party may meet its burden by demonstrating either

(1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2)

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. 

Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). To obtain injunctive relief, the

moving party must demonstrate exposure to irreparable harm absent the requested judicial intervention. 

Caribbean Marine Services Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Defendants acknowledge the DOC policy regarding the inclusion of prisoner’s names and numbers

on mail enclosures. However, defendants note that plaintiff has failed to cite any example of a document

sent to him in the context of this action that he did not receive due to this policy. In addition, plaintiff has

failed to allege he has not received any order or other document from this Court as the result of the DOC

policy. Indeed, plaintiff has not shown his ability to pursue his cause of action against defendants in any

way has been hindered by the application of that policy, as demonstrated by the numerous motions and

voluminous documentation he has filed in this matter to date. Finally, defendants assert an order from the

Court regarding this issue is not necessary, as all defendants are now on notice regarding the requirements

of that policy and will comply therewith. The undersigned agrees. 

Plaintiff has made no showing that the traditional or alternative standards for obtaining preliminary

injunctive relief have been met here. He has failed to show he has been harmed in any way as a result of

Case 3:05-cv-05646-RBL Document 61 Filed 04/19/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 3

the DOC policy in question with respect to this litigation. He also has not shown a likelihood of success

on the merits of his claims. See, e.g., Order Remanding Claims Against Private Parties to State Court,

dated the same date herewith. In addition, even if it can be said plaintiff was entitled to it, it is premature

at this stage of the proceedings to order permanent injunctive relief in this matter. 

Finally, “[i]t is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment in personam resulting from litigation

in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.”

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969). In other words, “a court has no

power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the

defendant.” Id. Here, plaintiff requests the Court enjoin defendants from enforcing a department-wide

policy. Although plaintiff asserts otherwise, he has not shown that any of the named defendants in this case

has the authority to alter or rescind the DOC policy in question. As such, the court has no power to grant

the injunctive relief requested. 

CONCLUSION

For all of the above reasons, the court should deny plaintiff’s motion for to order all parties and the

Court to comply with defendants’ special mail restrictions or bar restrictions. (Dkt. #26). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 72(b),

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written

objections thereto. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those

objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit

imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set this matter for consideration on May 12,

2006, as noted in the caption. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05646-RBL Document 61 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 3