Moreno v. Medina et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying Requests For Injunctive Relief (Docs. 7 , 8 , 14 , 15 ), ORDER Denying As Moot Motion To Proceed IFP, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/13/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MARK ANTHONY MORENO,

10

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00784-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v.
(Docs. 7, 8, 14, 15)

12

DAVID MEDINA, et al.,

13

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP

Defendants.
/

14
15

I.

16

Plaintiff Mark Anthony Moreno (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

17

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff originally filed the action on May 16,

18

2011. On August 16, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

19

(“IFP”) in this action. On July 11, 2011; July 25, 2011; August 12, 2011; and August 17 2011,

20

Plaintiff filed motions for injunctive relief requesting that the Court order prison officials to provide

21

him a copy of his trust fund account. (Docs. 7, 8, 14, 15). On August 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed

22

another motion to proceed IFP. (Doc. 16).

Procedural History

23

II.

24

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of

Preliminary Injunction

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376

25

right.”

26

(2008)(citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that

27

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

28

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is
1

1

in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded

2

upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

3

omitted)(emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[T]o the extent that our

4

cases have suggested a lesser standard, they are no longer controlling, or even viable.”

5

McDermott v. Ampersand Pub., LLC, 593 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2010), quoting Am. Trucking

6

Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The moving party

7

has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Environmental Council of Sacramento

8

v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).

Id. at 376 (citation

9

‘A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and

10

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

11

before the court.’ Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Zepeda

12

v. U.S. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). The claims in this action arise from conduct

13

unrelated to Plaintiff’s access to his prison trust account. Thus, the court cannot issue an order

14

requiring the issuance of prison trust documents from prison officials who are not parties to this

15

current action. Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, as the

16

Court already granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP on August 176 2011, Plaintiff’s request for

17

injunctive relief and his additional motion to proceed IFP filed on August 17, 2011, are moot.

18

III.

Conclusion and Recommendations

19

Therefore, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

20

1.

Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief, filed on July 11, 2011; July 25, 2011; August

21

12, 2011; and August 17 2011, December 28, 2011, are DENIED (Docs. 7, 8, 14,

22

15); and

23

2.

24

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on August 17, 2011 is
DENIED. (Doc. 16).

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated:
0jh02o

October 13, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2