Opinion
No. 2:20-cv-2343 KJN P
03-15-2021
STEVE CRUMP, Plaintiff, v. A. O'CAMPO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, and seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary injunction is before the court. (ECF No. 31.) As discussed below, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion be denied.
I. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
This action proceeds on plaintiff's amended complaint against defendant O'Campo. Plaintiff alleges the following. In October of 2019, after allegedly conflicting responses as to whether defendant O'Campo would renew plaintiff's single cell chrono, plaintiff filed health care grievances against O'Campo based on her revoking his single cell status. In retaliation for such grievances, defendant allegedly threatened to house plaintiff with a gang member, then, through "intimidation, threats of harm and fear," told plaintiff that O'Campo "would reduce [plaintiff's] mental health level of care from the Enhanced Outpatient Program ["EOP"] to the //// C.C.M.S." level of care, and then did so. (ECF No. 5 at 4.) For such alleged violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights, plaintiff seeks money damages and a court order granting plaintiff single cell status and reinstating his mental health care to the EOP level of care. (ECF No. 5 at 6.)
The Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provides four levels of mental health care services: Correctional Clinical Case Management System ("CCCMS"); Enhanced Outpatient ("EOP"); Mental Health Crisis Bed ("MHCB") and inpatient hospital care. Coleman v. Brown, 2013 WL 6491529, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013).
II. Law Governing Motions for Injunctive Relief
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (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, 555 U.S. at 20). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citation omitted).
The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm. See id.; Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). A presently existing actual threat must be shown, although the injury need not be certain to occur. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130-31 (1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998).
In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction "must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). ////
III. Plaintiff's Motion
Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining defendant and prison officials from placing plaintiff in a cell with another inmate. (ECF No. at 1-2, 6.) Plaintiff claims he has been diagnosed with significant paranoia, depression, and anxiety, and has safety fears, and was determined to be "an easy target for mainline inmates," and was twice assaulted in his cell prior to 2014. (ECF No. 31 at 2, 4.) Plaintiff was previously provided single cell assignments in 2005 and 2014. But in October of 2019, plaintiff avers that defendant O'Campo retaliated against plaintiff for filing health care grievances against her, "through intimidation, threats of harm and coercion, resulting in plaintiff being brought to committee and having his single cell status revoked, and his mental health level of care was reduced from EOP to CCCMS." (ECF No. 31 at 3.) Plaintiff claims he will continue to be irreparably injured unless the court grants his request for preliminary injunction.
IV. Discussion
As explained in the court's prior order, plaintiff is required to address each element under Winter. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff has again failed to do so. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of this action, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Although plaintiff claims that he will be irreparably injured by the defendant's conduct, he fails to provide specific facts demonstrating he is at risk of imminent harm; indeed, the actions of defendant occurred in October of 2019. Because plaintiff fails to demonstrate he meets all the elements under Winter, his motion should be denied.
In addition, the court previously explained that single cell housing for inmates with mental health concerns is addressed by a classification committee, not solely based on a recommendation by defendant. (ECF No. 29 at 2-3, citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3269(f).) "A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court." Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (listing persons bound by an injunction). Thus, plaintiff is unable to obtain injunctive relief as to "prison officials" or other individuals not appearing in this action. Without jurisdiction over such individuals, the court lacks the authority to issue injunctive relief against them. See Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) ("The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.").
Moreover, plaintiff's motion tracks the allegations of his operative pleading. That plaintiff's pending motion for injunctive relief reflects an ultimate issue in this case renders preliminary injunctive relief inappropriate. Absent facts not alleged here, the balance of equities weighs in favor of defendant because plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief on ultimate issues in this case. Also, on the instant record, the public interest weighs in favor of not interfering with prison administration, particularly with regard to mental health treatment and housing decisions.
A prisoner does not have an Eighth Amendment right to be housed in a single cell. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347-48 (1981) (double-celling does not violate Eighth Amendment unless it amounts to unnecessary and wanton pain).
Therefore, the undersigned finds that the factors warranting preliminary injunctive relief weigh against plaintiff, and his motion (ECF No. 31) should be denied.
V. Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.
Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 31) be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The //// //// parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: March 15, 2021
/s/_________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /crum2343.pi2