Washington v. Mohammed et al
Filing
99
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/29/2017 RECOMMENDING that 91 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order be denied. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN WASHINGTON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
No. 2:08-cv-0386-KJM-CMK-P
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
SALEM MOHAMMED, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining
19
order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 91).
20
The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a
21
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the
22
moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See
23
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res.
24
Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser
25
standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer
26
controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,
1
1
1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is
2
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an
3
injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public
4
interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374).
5
Where a prisoner is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of
6
confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief
7
moot, unless there is some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v.
8
Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991)
9
(per curiam).
10
This action proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 8), which
11
alleges one claim, a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights for failure to protect plaintiff from
12
inmate-on-inmate violence at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP). In his current motion, plaintiff
13
seeks single cell status and is requesting an order from the court directing that the defendants and
14
officials at his current facility, R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD), be ordered to provide
15
him a single cell. His request is based on allegations he claims he raised in his second amended
16
complaint, which he was not authorized to file. He contends that his single cell status, which he
17
was granted at MCSP, was arbitrarily taken away from his at his current facility. He states that
18
he is currently housed alone, but is subject to getting a cellmate at anytime.
19
It is noted that plaintiff was transferred to RJD in September 2013. He states his
20
single cell status was revoked when he was transferred. Yet he waited three years to challenge
21
his cell status, and fails to identify any actual current threat. The inmates who allegedly
22
threatened and attacked him were housed with him at MCSP. There is no allegation that these
23
inmates have also been transferred to RJD. Indeed, there are no allegations that plaintiff is under
24
any imminent danger of violence by other inmates at RJD.
25
26
As to the other elements, plaintiff fails to show the balance of hardship tips in his
favor as there is no indication that the inmates who have threatened him are even at the same
2
1
facility as he is. Requiring the prison to house inmates in a specific way poses an undue hardship
2
on the prison, which does not appear to be necessary in this case. Similarly, plaintiff fails to
3
show such an order would be in the public interest. Finally, as this case is still pre-summary
4
judgment, it is difficult to determine how likely plaintiff is to succeed on the merits. However, as
5
the other factors do not weigh in plaintiff’s favor, there is no basis for the order to be granted.
6
In addition, plaintiff is requesting the court issue an order directing officials at
7
RJD to house plaintiff in a single cell. The undersigned notes that none of the defendants in this
8
action are RJD officials. To the extent plaintiff has filed a request for injunctive relief against
9
individuals who are not named as defendants in this action, this court is unable to issue such an
10
order. This court is not able to issue orders against individuals who are not parties to a suit
11
pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
12
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds plaintiff fails to make the required
13
showing for a temporary restraining order and recommends that his motion (Doc. 91) be denied.
14
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
15
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
16
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
17
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
18
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
19
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
21
22
23
DATED: September 29, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?