Christ v. Hartley

Filing 12

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 09/02/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 10/6/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JON CHRIST,

11

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

CASE NO.

1:11-cv-00705-AWI-GBC (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

JAMES HARTLEY, et al.,
(ECF No. 9)

14

Defendants.
/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

15
16
17
18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Jon Christ (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and is proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court.

20
Defendant Hartley then removed it to federal court on April 11, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) It has
21
22

not yet been screened by this Court.

23

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed May

24

12, 2011. (ECF No. 9.) In the Motion, Plaintiff states that, on April 15, 2011, he was

25

informed by prison staff that all electronic appliances were going to be taken away from all

26

inmates. Plaintiff requests that an injunction be issued to stop this from happening.

27
1

1

II.

2
3

LEGAL STANDARDS
To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate “that he is

likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

4
5

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

6

in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)

7

(citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). The Ninth

8

Circuit has also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to preliminary injunctions

9

as it relates to the showing a plaintiff must make regarding his chances of success on the

10

merits survives Winter and continues to be valid. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622

11
12

F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2010).

Under this sliding scale, the elements of the

13

preliminary injunction test are balanced. As it relates to the merits analysis, a stronger

14

showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing of likelihood of

15

success on the merits. Id.

16
17

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

18
19

the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

20

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

21

III.

ANALYSIS

22

In the his Motion, Plaintiff makes allegations that all electronics will soon be

23

removed from the prison. Plaintiff states that the prisoners should be allowed to have fans

24

because the ventilation system is inadequate. He fails to attribute responsibility for this

25
26

action to any named Defendants.

27
2

1

The Court finds that, at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff fails to meet the legal

2

standards required to be granted injunctive relief. To succeed on such motion, Plaintiff

3

must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer

4
5

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

6

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Plaintiff has not addressed any of the

7

legal requirements to meet the standard. He does not state anything about the merits of

8

this action, does not refer to any irreparable harm, the balance of equities or the public

9

good.

10

IV.

CONCLUSION

11
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion

12
13

for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED.

14

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States

15

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §

16

636(b)(1).

17

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document

18
19

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

20

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

21

to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:
1j0bbc

September 2, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
3