Patrick v. Reynaga et al

Filing 30

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Deny Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/15/17. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

NICHOLAS PATRICK,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
REYNAGA, et al.,
Defendants.

15

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 15)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 29, 2016 motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No.
15.) The motion seeks to have several individuals – some who are named as
Defendants in this action and some who are not – transferred from Wasco State Prison,

23
where Plaintiff was housed at the time of filing his motion. Plaintiff claimed that he was
24
being sexually harassed and that female staff was being forced to have sex against their
25
will. Attached to the motion are apparently unrelated minutes from proceedings in a
26
separate case brought by Plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Central
27
28

District of California.

1

As an initial matter, the Court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief

2

which would require directing parties not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v.

3

United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A

4

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

5

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

6

persons not before the court.”).

7

Furthermore, the Court finds no basis for awarding the relief Plaintiff requests.

8

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, never

9

awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “A

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

(quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).

15

Plaintiff heretofore has failed to state a cognizable claim and there presently is no

16

operative pleading in this matter. The Court therefore cannot conclude that Plaintiff is

17

likely to succeed on the merits of any claims. Plaintiff also fails to suggest a real and

18

immediate threat of irreparable injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,

19

101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury, and “[p]ast

20

exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy

21

regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present, adverse

22

effects.”). He no longer is housed at Wasco State Prison and any threat of injury arising

23

out of his placement in that facility appears to be moot. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S.

24

395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991); see also

25

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court finds nothing

26

to tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff’s favor. And, while the public has an interest in

27

providing inmates with constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement, the record

28
2

1

before the Court does not justify the Court substituting its judgment for that of

2

correctional staff. These criteria not having been met, Plaintiff is not entitled to

3

preliminary injunctive relief.

4
5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief be DENIED.

6

The findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District

7

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

8

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, the

9

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned

10

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond

11

to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being

12

served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

13

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

14

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

15

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 15, 2017

/s/

19

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3