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.

Eric Wheeler v. K. Aliceson

January 8, 2013

ERIC WHEELER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
K. ALICESON, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF Nos. 13, 14) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Eric Wheeler is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed May 25, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff declined to extend Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to all matters and for all purposes in this case. (Decline Magistrate, ECF No. 8.)

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 7, 2012 (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 7) without the original Complaint having been screened by the Court. The Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint on January 3, 2013, for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to file an amended complaint. (Order Dismiss. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.)

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for order of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Mot. Inj., ECF No. 13), and addendum to motion for order of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.*fn1 (Adden. Mot. Inj., ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff wants the Court to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from (1) denying him access to mental health care, (2) harassment, retaliation, and reprisal, and (3) arbitrary and capricious transfer and classification. (Mot. Inj. at 1:25-2:15.) He also wants enjoin Defendants from the retaliatory placing of false documents, chronos and reports relating to events in issue in his inmate files and Defendants Isira, Garcia, Trevino, Goss, and Fisher from accessing his inmate files. (Adden. Mot. Inj. at 3.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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 of 1995 ("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. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976).

III. ARGUMENT

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants, the warden and individual mental health staff members at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison ("CSATF"), have denied him mental health care and therapy, apparently by excluding him from the G-Facility Extended Out Patient ("EOP") mental health program, (Mot. Inj. at 1:18-19, 4:1-3) and that this exclusion is because of false charges of stalking and threatening EOP staff, his reports of staff's unprofessional and unethical conduct and a related campaign of harassment and retaliation by Defendants and those acting in concert with them. (Affid. in Supp. at 1:10-18.)

Plaintiff further asserts that even if he is allowed access to the EOP program, he would be subject to potential ongoing harassment and retaliation including rules violation, Ad-Seg, adverse punishment, adverse classification, and possible transfer. (Id. at 1:19-27.)

Plaintiff supports his motion with his underlying pleading, his declaration attached as Exhibit A to the instant motion (Decl. in Supp.), the addendum to motion, and his declaration in support of the addendum. (Decl. in Supp. of Adden.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. No Relief Against Non-Party

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against unnamed "PVSP officials." He may not request injunctive relief against non-parties. Plaintiff can not seek relief against a party not named in his pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Generalized injunctive relief against unidentified California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") staff is not permissible. The PLRA states that:

[T]he 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. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief. 18 U.S.C. ยง 3626(a)(1)(A). Similar ...


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.