West v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
Filing
40
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending Denial of 32 Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 6/24/2011. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 7/28/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
GERALD A. WEST,
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01277-GBC (PC)
9
Plaintiff,
10
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
v.
11
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
12
13
(ECF No. 32)
Defendants.
14
15
/
16
Plaintiff Gerald A. West (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Third Amended
18
Complaint, filed August 27, 2010, against Defendants Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 for failure
19
to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 25.)
20
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief on March 24, 2011. (ECF No. 32.) In it,
21
Plaintiff details the facts of this action, subsequent altercations, retaliation, and due
22
process violations, among other things.
23
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”
24
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation
25
omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
26
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
27
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
28
1
the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon
2
a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis
3
added).
4
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for
5
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary
6
matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
7
U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church
8
and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or
9
controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of
10
injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s
11
case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
12
burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,
13
103-04 (1998).
14
The standard for a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary
15
injunction, with the exception that the plaintiff must show actual success, rather than a
16
likelihood of success. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.
17
12 (1987). However, the Ninth Circuit has recently revived the “serious questions” sliding
18
scale test, and ruled that a preliminary injunction may be appropriate when a plaintiff
19
demonstrates serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips
20
sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052-53
21
(9th Cir. 2010).
22
In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison
23
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires that any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly
24
drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires
25
preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18
26
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Moreover, where, as here, “a plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary
27
injunction that goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should be
28
extremely cautious’ about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief
-2-
1
unless the facts and law clearly favor the plaintiff.” Committee of Central American
2
Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Martin v. International
3
Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)).
4
Plaintiff fails to meet the all of the legal standards required to be granted an
5
injunction. To succeed on a motion for such relief, Plaintiff must establish that he is likely
6
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
7
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
8
the public interest. Plaintiff states that the threatened injury outweighs any damage the
9
injunction might cause; the public interest is best served by issuing the injunction; and that
10
there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff’s case.
11
The Motion appears to be describing different causes of action in different
12
institutions not being dealt with here. Plaintiff appears to be seeking a transfer out of his
13
current institution, which is not the same institution where the claims found to be
14
cognizable occurred. The relief sought by Plaintiff in the instant motion is not related to the
15
controversy before the Court. Any orders relating to a transfer from Plaintiff’s current
16
institution (USP-Lewisburg) would not remedy Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims that
17
occurred at USP-Atwater. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought
18
by Plaintiff.
19
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be
20
DENIED.
21
//
22
///
23
/
24
//
25
/
26
/
27
//
28
/
-3-
1
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District
2
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3
Within thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the
4
Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Any such document should be captioned
5
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that
6
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
7
Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
Dated:
1j0bbc
June 24, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?