The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF NO. 35) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Graham Roger Lee De Luis Conti, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility ("CSATF"), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has declined to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Req. for Reassignment, ECF No. 20.) This matter proceeds on Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Fourth Amended Complaint, ECF No. 33), which has not yet been screened by the Court.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Motion, ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff claims unnamed corrections staff at CSATF have caused the loss or destruction of unspecified personal property including legal documents, materials and evidence relating to this action. (Motion at 5). He asks the Court take unspecified immediate action to enable this case to proceed in a proper and timely manner and to prevent further irreparable harm. (Motion at 6.) Defendants have not filed any opposition and the time for doing so has passed. Local Rule 230. Plaintiff's Motion is now before the Court.
Plaintiff, a paraplegic permanently dependent upon a wheelchair, alleges in his Fourth Amended Complaint that during his confinement at CSATF and other facilities he has been subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement including overcrowding and lockdowns, medical indifference, disability and gender discrimination, failure to accommodate his disability, improper handling of his inmate requests and grievances, improper handling of his legal mail, and retaliation. (Fourth Amended Complaint at 3-19.) He seeks monetary and injunctive relief. (Id. at 21-23.) He names as Defendants M. Cates, Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Evans, Warden of Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), Allison, Warden of CSATF, Governor Schwartzenneger, and Does 1-10. (Id. at 2-3.)
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff alleges that during November-December 2011, CSATF staff retaliated against him for filing this action by placing him in Ad-Seg (ostensibly due to a lack of available bed space elsewhere) and thereby causing him to be deprived of, and ultimately to lose, unspecified personal property including improperly inventoried legal documents, materials and evidence relating to this action. (Motion at 2-3, 5-6.) His inmate requests and appeals related to these losses were ignored or improperly rejected. (Id. at 2-4). He believes he was placed in Ad-Seg so that CSATF staff could search and remove certain legal documents without any penological justification. (Id. at 4-5.)
He alleges the loss of his legal documents, evidence, and contracts has irreparably harmed him. (Id. at 5-6.) He asks that the Court take unspecified "immediate action in this matter . . . so that this case may proceed in a proper and timely manner, before [the Plaintiff] is subjected to further irreparable harm." (Id. at 6.)
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). "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." Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. "[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III's case-or controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1998).
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."
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief. As noted, to succeed on such a motion, Plaintiff 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 ...