Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Darren Kawamoto v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

December 15, 2012

DARREN KAWAMOTO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE AND RETURN SERVICE DOCUMENTS AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, REQUESTED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF Nos. 15)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Darren Kawamoto is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed August 8, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Consent, ECF No. 5.)

On September 26, 2012, the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint, found it stated cognizable claims against certain Defendants for violation of Plaintiff's rights under by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and ordered Plaintiff to complete and return service documents within thirty days. (Order Cogniz. Claims, ECF No. 8.) The Court has twice since extended time for Plaintiff to complete and return service. (Orders, ECF Nos. 10, 13.) Service documents are currently due from Plaintiff by not later than December 6, 2012. (Id.)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a further thirty day extension of time to complete and return service documents and for injunctive relief forbidding all CDCR staff from interfering with Plaintiff's access to courts. (Mot. for Ext. Time and Inj. Relief, ECF No. 15.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Extensions of Time

"When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The Court has wide discretion to extend time. Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996). A party must demonstrate some justification for the issuance of the enlargement order. Ginett v. Federal Express Corp., 166 F.3d 1213 at 5* (6th Cir. 1998). However, enlargement will normally be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010).

B. Injunctive Relief

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.

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."

Injunctive relief should be used "sparingly, and only . . . in clear and plain case[s]." Rizzo v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.