Williams v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Immediate Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/24/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

LANCE WILLIAMS,

13
Plaintiff

14
v.

15

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01714-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF NO. 26)

16

WACO STATE PRISON, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

20

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate

21

judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)

22
23

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

24

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary

25

restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the moving

26

party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying controversy

27

and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the

28

balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant's favor. See Coalition for Economic
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle
Publ'g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two
points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown.
See Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. Under any formulation of the test, however, the
moving party must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.
See id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the court
need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. See id. The loss of
money, or an injury whose measure of damages can be calculated in terms of money, will

8
not be considered irreparable. See id. at 1334-35.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

II.

DISCUSSION
The actions that give rise to Plaintiff’s complaint occurred while he was housed at

Wasco State Prison (“WSP”) in Wasco, California. He is currently incarcerated at
California Medical Facility (“CMF”) in Vacaville, California. In his motion for an immediate
preliminary injunction, Plaintiff asks the Court to order nonparty CMF officials to issue him
a lower bunk chrono.
Plaintiff’s request to enjoin nonparties at CMF is denied. Plaintiff’s claim about
CMF staff members’ refusal to issue a lower bunk is unrelated to the claims asserted in

18

Plaintiff’s complaint – namely, that WSP Defendants acted with deliberate indifference by

19

refusing to provide Plaintiff medical care following a fall from a bunk. A preliminary

20

injunction may grant “intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be

21

granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). However, a

22

court should not issue an injunction when the relief sought is not of the same character

23

and the injunction deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the underlying

24

action. Id. Also, as a general rule, a court may not enter an injunction against persons not

25

parties to the case before it absent some substantial relationship. See Zepeda v. U.S.

26

INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984).

27
28
2

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

immediate preliminary injunction (ECF No. 26) is DENIED.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 24, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3