Bealer v. Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/15/2017 recommending that 6 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be denied. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ANTWOINE BEALER,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITAITON, et al.,

15
16

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00671-LJO-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 6)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

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.

21

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 6, 2016 motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No.

22

6.) The motion seeks to halt random drug tests Plaintiff views as retaliatory. The Court

23

finds no basis for awarding the relief Plaintiff requests.

24

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy,

25

never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).

26

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

27

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

28

1

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

2

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

3

2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).

4

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that, while Plaintiff’s

5

allegations of retaliatory drug tests state a viable claim, he had not properly linked that

6

clam to any defendant. Plaintiff heretofore has failed to state a cognizable claim and

7

there presently is no operative pleading in this matter. Thus, the Court cannot conclude

8

that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of any claims or that he may seek

9

injunctive relief against the named defendants.

10

Plaintiff also fails to suggest a real and immediate threat of irreparable injury. See

11

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and

12

immediate” threat of injury, and “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show

13

a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any

14

continuing, present, adverse effects.”). He fails to explain how he will be irreparably

15

harmed by the continued drug testing.

16

Furthermore, the Court finds nothing to tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff’s

17

favor. And, while the public has an interest in preventing arbitrary and retaliatory conduct

18

by prison officials, the record before the Court does not justify the Court substituting its

19

judgment for that of correctional staff.

20

The relevant criteria not having been met, Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary

21

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

22

injunctive relief be DENIED.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 15, 2017

/s/

9

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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