Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

STARR v. ALAMEDA COUNTY JAIL, C 12-4400 RMW (PR). (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20141003773 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. Plaintiff, a detainee pending involuntary civil commitment, proceeding pro se , filed a second amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court dismissed several claims without prejudice and served plaintiff's claims that defendants Alameda County, Sheriff Ahern, Dr. Michael Pompey, Dr. Orr, Dr. Barber, Dr. Chan, Dr. Gabaron, Dr. Elizabeth Mastroianni, Dr. Lane Melgarejo, and D
More

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a detainee pending involuntary civil commitment, proceeding pro se, filed a second amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed several claims without prejudice and served plaintiff's claims that defendants Alameda County, Sheriff Ahern, Dr. Michael Pompey, Dr. Orr, Dr. Barber, Dr. Chan, Dr. Gabaron, Dr. Elizabeth Mastroianni, Dr. Lane Melgarejo, and Dr. Newell, violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from punishment. Plaintiff's claim is generally based upon defendants' actions and inactions regarding plaintiff's medical care.

Plaintiff has also filed an "order to show cause for preliminay [sic] injunction and temporary restraining order," which the court construes as a motion for a preliminary injunction. In the motion, plaintiff requests that the court enjoin Deputy R. Galvez, Deputy J. Malizia, Deputy H. Riley, Technician McNeal, Technician W. Bergren and "all other named and unnamed custody defendants employed with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department" from committing physical assault and battery against plaintiff, repeatedly ransacking plaintiff's cell, and illegally confiscating and destroying his property. Plaintiff also requests that those individuals refrain from retaliating against plaintiff. Plaintiff described that on October 13, 2013, Deputies Galvez and Malizia removed plaintiff from his cell while they ransacked his cell and destroyed plaintiff's personal and legal property. As they escorted plaintiff back to his cell, Deputy Malizia hit plaintiff in his right shoulder. The following day, plaintiff attempted several times to file grievances, but Deputy Riley refused to process them.

The decision of whether to grant or deny a motion for preliminary injunction is a matter of the district court's discretion. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under the traditional test for granting preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must: (1) establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009). As a corollary to this test, the Ninth Circuit has also found a preliminary injunction appropriate if "serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of the hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor," thereby allowing preservation of the status quo where complex legal questions require further inspection or deliberation. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010).

It appears that plaintiff is seeking to expand his causes of action by using the request for preliminary injunctive relief as a means to litigate additional claims unrelated to that set forth in his complaint. However, plaintiff cannot seek relief related to events occurring after the filing of the instant lawsuit and which are not related to the incident at issue, nor can he seek relief against non-parties. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Here, plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief does not accomplish that goal with respect to the subject matter of this action. To the extent that plaintiff believes he may be in need of, and legally entitled to, the relief from the motions for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must first exhaust his administrative remedies for these new claims and then, if appropriate, bring a new federal action.

Accordingly, the request for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer