(PC) Bennett v. Monroe Detention Center

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:22-cv-2157 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MONROE DETENTION CTR., et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a detainee at the Yolo County Superior Court proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff has multiple pending motions. In addition, on July 24, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Below, this court addresses plaintiff’s seven pending motions for preliminary injunctive relief and recommends they be denied without prejudice.

22 BACKGROUND 23 When he initiated this action, plaintiff was an inmate at Yolo County’s Monroe Detention Center. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff identified as defendants the Monroe Detention Center, the Yolo County Jail,1 mental health providers working at the Detention Center, and Detention Center 1 It appears the Monroe Detention Center and the Yolo County Jail are one and the same institution. In any event, plaintiff generally refers to his place of detention as “the Jail.”

28 Therefore, the court does so as well.

1 staff. Plaintiff complained of the Jail’s mental health programs and his treatment, the legal materials provided by the Jail, and law library access. In a screening order issued April 4, 2023, the court found plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims for relief under §1983 because, among other things, he failed to connect the alleged violations of his rights to any named defendant. (Apr. 4, 2023 Order; ECF No. 17 at 5.) Plaintiff was provided instructions for amending his complaint and a brief description of the legal standards for the claims plaintiff appeared to be raising. (Id. at 6-9.) The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.

8 The April 4, 2023 screening order also addressed plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel, for injunctive relief, and for a guardian ad litem. All were denied without prejudice.

10 (ECF No. 17 at 11-14.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed another series of motions, including motions for various types of injunctive relief, for appointment of a guardian ad litem, and for recusal of the judge. All were denied. Most were denied without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 22, 31, 43, 46.)

13 During the course of these proceedings, plaintiff was transferred from the Jail to Atascadero State Hospital in June 2023, back to the Jail in November 2023, and to Patton State Hospital on July 24, 2024. (See Dkt. Notation on June 27, 2023; ECF No. 29; ECF No. 58.) In a document filed October 2, plaintiff states that he has been returned to the Jail. (ECF No. 65.)

17 On March 18, 2024, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 38.) On screening, the court found plaintiff’s 138-page filing “long” and “rambling” and that it contained various unrelated documents and motions. (ECF No. 43 at 3-4.) In a June 24, 2024 order, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was again provided instructions for filing an amended complaint. (Id. at 4-6.) The June 24 order also denied without prejudice plaintiff’s numerous motions for injunctive relief, primarily on the grounds that the court could not determine the relief plaintiff was seeking. (Id. at 7-8.)

24 On July 24, 2024, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 57.) In addition, over the last several months, plaintiff filed multiple additional motions for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 62, 63), motions for the appointment of a guardian ad litem (ECF Nos. 50, 58, 65), and a motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 51). The court is in the process of considering plaintiff’s motions for appointment of a guardian ad litem and counsel. But because plaintiff identifies some of his motions for preliminary injunctive relief as an emergency, this court considers them at this time.

3 MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 4 I. Legal Standards 5 A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In the alternative, a preliminary injunction may be issued when the plaintiff demonstrates “serious questions going to the merits” and that “the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” along with “a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Even when the other necessary factors are present, 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).

16 II. Motions Filed During Prior Detention at the Jail 17 Between June 13 and July 7, when he was detained at the Jail, plaintiff filed five motions for preliminary injunctive relief. Briefly, and without describing every one of plaintiff’s complaints and requests, the court summarizes the motions filed during this time period. In his motion dated June 13, plaintiff states that he is an FBI agent, lists a series of federal law violations, contends the public defender is retaliating against him by initiating a proceeding to question his competency to stand trial, alleges his access to the courts is being denied by limitations on legal materials, claims he has been subjected to human trafficking, and claims he is being beaten by officers. (ECF No. 44.) In his unsigned and undated motion docketed on July 11, plaintiff asks the court to stop mail room and library officers from reading his legal mail.

26 (ECF No. 49.) In his motion dated July 4, plaintiff asks for legal supplies, to stop the “taunting device torture,” and to be sent to the state hospital for restoration of competency. (ECF No. 50.)

28 In his motion dated June 17, plaintiff complains about the lack of legal supplies, excessive force, and retaliation. (ECF No. 51.) In his motion dated July 7, plaintiff states that he has been denied the help of a jailhouse lawyer with his habeas corpus petition, that his legal mail is being read, and that he is being refused mental health treatment. (ECF No. 52.)

4 Plaintiff’s motions contain a broad range of allegations, many of which are patently incredible, and seek a broad range of injunctive relief. Because the last motion plaintiff filed during his prior jail detention is dated July 7, any allegations the court might be able to address, such as plaintiff’s access to legal materials, are not necessarily current concerns. Because any harm plaintiff sought to remedy is no longer imminent and, in any event, was relieved by plaintiff’s transfer to Patton State Hospital on July 24, this court will recommend plaintiff’s first five pending motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied without prejudice.

11 III. Motions Filed During Detention at Patton State Hospital 12 Plaintiff filed two motions for injunctive relief while he was detained at Patton State Hospital. (ECF Nos. 62, 63.) Plaintiff complained about a lack of grievance forms, legal supplies, and Jewish services. He also stated that he was going on a hunger strike because he was being denied kosher meals. Because plaintiff has been transferred back to the Jail, he is no longer being subjected to the conduct he complained about at Patton. Plaintiff’s motions should be denied for this reason. This court recommends they be denied without prejudice based on the possibility plaintiff could be returned to Patton.

19 For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district judge to this case.

21 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 62, 63) be denied without prejudice.

23 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified //// || time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3 | Dated: October 11, 2024 ‘ mk > SEAN C. RIORDAN 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]