ORDER PARTIALLY ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 75, 97, 102)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRESERVE HIS RIGHT TO FILE AN O P P O S I T I O N T O D E F E N D A N T S ' OBJECTIONS (ECF No. 104)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 106)
Plaintiff George H. Robinson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was removed from Kings County Superior Court and is proceeding on the complaint filed May 13, 2008, against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez, and Masiel for the use of excessive force and Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failing to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and state law claims for assault and battery against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda, and Garcia; intentional infliction of emotional distress against David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez, and Masiel; and negligence against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez, and Masiel. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 4, 2011, findings and recommendations were issued recommending Defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied. The parties were given thirty days within which to file objections and Defendants filed an objection to the findings and recommendations on March 8, 2011. Plaintiff filed a motion to preserve his right to file an opposition to Defendants objections on March 21, 2011(ECF No. 104.) On April 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 106.)
II. Motion to Preserve Right to File Opposition
Plaintiff has filed a motion to preserve his right to file an opposition if the Court makes a finding that he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Based upon the recommendation in the findings and recommendations Plaintiff's request shall be denied as moot.
III. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction because correctional officers searched his cell on April 10, 2011. He alleges that the officers spent two hours in his cell going through his legal documents. Since this is the only case he has pending he infers that the officers were acting on behalf of Defendants to steal evidence he plans to use at trial. Plaintiff requests a court order to prohibit Defendants or their agents from taking any of his documents relating to this matter.
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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." Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009) quoting Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires Plaintiff to "show that he is under threat of suffering 'injury in fact' that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury." Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).
In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in relevant part, "Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief 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." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
The case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion bears no relation to the claim that prison guards used excessive force on him. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1148-49 (2009); Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-04, 107. Because the case-or-controversy requirement cannot be met, the pendency of this action provides no basis upon which to award Plaintiff the injunctive relief he is requesting. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-103. Additionally, the relief sought is not related to the underlying claims in this action and would not ...