Jackson v. Patzkowski et al, No. 4:2017cv05189 - Document 58 (E.D. Wash. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER denying 51 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)**6 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Kyntrel Jackson, Prisoner ID: 355949)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jackson v. Patzkowski et al Doc. 58 1 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Sep 11, 2018 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEAN F. M AVOY, CLERK 3 C 4 KYNTREL JACKSON, No. 4:17-CV-05189-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, 6 7 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHAWNA PATZKOWSKI and R. ZARAGOZA, 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Kyntrel Jackson’s 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 51. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary 12 injunction to “stop any farther [sic] harassment and violations concerning this civil 13 suit by the defendants in this matter.” Id. at 2. Having reviewed the pleadings and 14 the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and denies Plaintiff’s motion. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 The Court received Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint and application to proceed 17 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on November 11, 2017. ECF No. 1. On January 12, 2018, 18 the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application and directed the Clerk of Court to file 19 the Complaint. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth 20 Amendments, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (“RLUIPA”). ECF No. 1. He requests that the Court order Defendants to deliver his 2 sacred writings religious book, which Defendants have refused to give him. Id. at 3 13. 4 By separate Order, the Court dismissed in part Plaintiff’s Complaint for 5 failure to state a claim and terminated certain individuals from the action. ECF No. 6 12 at 3–8. On the same day, the Court received Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 7 ECF No. 15. The Amended Complaint alleges the same claims against the same 8 defendants, but differs from the original in two respects: (1) it added a claim under 9 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) it added a defendant, Chaplain 10 Fred Ivey. Id. Plaintiff again seeks injunctive relief relating to his sacred writings 11 religious book. 12 On January 19, 2018, the Court again dismissed in part the Complaint for 13 failure to state a claim, including the added claim, and terminated certain 14 individuals accordingly. ECF No. 21 at 8–9. The remaining Defendants, Shawna 15 Patzkowski and R. Zaragoza, were directed to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint 16 regarding the censorship of his religious book under the First Amendment and 17 RLUIPA—the only surviving claims. Id. at 10. Defendants answered on March 16, 18 2018. ECF No. 37. 19 On August 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. ECF No. 51. 20 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 2 II. 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 “Preliminary injunctions are an ‘extraordinary remedy never awarded as of 3 right.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Winter v. 4 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)). To obtain a preliminary 5 injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) [he] is likely to succeed on the 6 merits of [his] claim, (2) [he] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 7 preliminary relief, (3) the balance of hardships tips in [his] favor, and (4) a 8 preliminary injunction is in the public interest.” Int’l Franchise Ass’n v. City of 9 Seattle, 803 F.3d 389, 399 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). 10 Whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits is a threshold inquiry; 11 when a plaintiff fails to show the likelihood of success on the merits, a court need 12 not consider the remaining elements. Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740. 13 Additionally, courts face further restrictions when a civil action involves a 14 prisoner plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials with 15 respect to prison conditions: 16 17 18 Preliminary injunctive relief 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 that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief. . . . 19 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 20 This statute “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 3 1 courts and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may 2 courts grant or approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the 3 constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). III. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to stop Defendants from “opening 6 and tampering with [his] legal mail [relating to this case] and evidence against 7 them.” ECF No. 51 at 1. He asserts that “per law, policy, ethics, and privilege this 8 is illegal and should not be happening.” Id. Moreover, he argues that he is not 9 receiving legal documents concerning this case. Id. at 1–2. 10 Although Defendants responded, ECF No. 55, their brief paragraph response 11 points only to Plaintiff’s lack of evidence and failure to articulate what relief he 12 seeks. They also append the Washington State Department of Correction’s Policy 13 450.100, Mail for Prison Offenders. 1 Id. They assert that without any contrary 14 evidence, it is fair to assume the policy is being followed. Id. Putting aside Plaintiff’s lack of evidence and inarticulate demands, which the 15 16 1 17 18 19 20 Pursuant to Directive Section III titled “Inspection,” employees are authorized to inspect and read mail to prevent “sending/receiving contraband or other material that threatens facility order or security, and/or criminal activity.” ECF No. 55-1 at 6. Moreover, under Section VII titled “Legal Mail,” “designated employees” must open legal mail “in the offender’s presence.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff has failed to show that the named Defendants were—or were not—such designated employees, whether Defendants violated the Directive by not opening mail in Plaintiff’s presence, and why the overall policy is unlawful in light of the prison’s penological interests. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 4 1 construes liberally, Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 2 (9th Cir. 1988), the insurmountable barrier for Plaintiff is that he seeks to enjoin 3 conduct unrelated to his underlying claims. 4 A preliminary injunction is appropriate to grant relief of the “same character 5 as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 6 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court may not issue an injunction in “a matter lying 7 wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Id. In other words, a plaintiff must show a 8 relationship, or nexus, between the injury claimed in his motion for injunctive relief 9 and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. Pac. Radiation Oncology, 10 LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2015). 11 Here, the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s motion have no nexus to the factual 12 allegations underlying his First Amendment and RLUIPA claims. Plaintiff makes 13 no showing that Defendants’ refusal to deliver his sacred writings religious book is 14 related to their “opening and tampering” of his mail. 15 Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff’s motion. IV. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 51, is 20 DENIED. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 5 1 2 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel and to Plaintiff. DATED this 11th day of September 2018. ___________________________ SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
