Mario Molina v. Holland et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/30/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO MOLINA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
K. HOLLAND, et al.,

15

1:15-cv-01260-EPG-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 4.)

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Mario Molina (APlaintiff@), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

20

Complaint commencing this action on August 17, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On September 2, 2015,

21

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, and no other party

22

has appeared in this action. (ECF No. 8.)

23

Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all

24

proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local

25

Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

Plaintiff filed the

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the

26

On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for an “Order to Show Cause for an (sic)

27

Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order,” which the Court construes as a

28

motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 4.)
1

1

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed

3

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

4

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.@ Id.

5

at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the

6

plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

7

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for

8

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary

9

matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

10

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for

11

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the

12

Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter

13

in question. Id.

14

Plaintiff has requested a court order enjoining the defendants from denying Plaintiff

15

proper medical care, enjoining defendants El Said and Dr. Wilson from retaliating against

16

Plaintiff for filing a staff complaint against defendant Rivera, and requiring defendants

17

Holland, Rivera, Gutierrez, and Jones to release Plaintiff from administrative segregation and

18

transfer him to an institution near the eye specialist who has offices in Bakersfield and Los

19

Angeles.

20

The defendants named in Plaintiff’s Complaint are employees at the California

21

Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California. However, according to Plaintiff=s

22

address of record at the Court, Plaintiff is now housed at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) in

23

Corcoran, California.1

24

CCI, his motion for a court order prohibiting or requiring those employees= actions is moot.

25

Where the prisoner is challenging conditions of confinement and is seeking injunctive relief,

Because Plaintiff is no longer subjected to the actions of employees at

26
27
28

1
On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address, changing his address from CCI to
CSP. (ECF No. 9.)

2

1

transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot absent some evidence of

2

an expectation of being transferred back. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975);

3

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); see also Andrews v.

4

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007).

5

Note that this order does not preclude other forms of relief, such as damages, as

6

requested in Plaintiff’s complaint.

7

III.

8
9

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on August 17, 2015, is DENIED.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 30, 2015

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3