Jefferson v. Perez et al
Filing
72
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/7/2011 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 48 , 49 , 55 and 66 motions for preliminary injunction be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JAMES L. JEFFERSON
Plaintiff,
11
12
vs.
13
No. CIV S-09-3008 GEB CMK P
A. PEREZ, et al.
14
Defendants.
/
15
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action
17
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed five motions for a preliminary injunction. Two of them
18
allege harassment by an unnamed party, presumably at Donovan State Prison, where he is now
19
housed. See Docket Nos. 48 and 49. The other three vaguely complain that defendants’
20
attorneys are improperly interfering with plaintiff’s efforts to prosecute his case. See Docket
21
Nos. 55, 57 and 67.
22
A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened
23
injury that would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. “A
24
preliminary injunction... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for
25
preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment.” Sierra
26
On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary
1
1
injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to be indulged except in a case
2
clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “The
3
proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is
4
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
5
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the
6
public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting Winter
7
v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 (2008). In cases brought
8
by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly
9
drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary
10
relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Plaintiff cannot enjoin persons who are not defendants in the underlying action by
11
12
making vague allegations that are not related to the operative complaint. “Unrelated claims
13
against different defendants belong in different suits[.]” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
14
Cir. 2007). Moreover, plaintiff seeks no specific relief by the court in any of his motions for
15
injunctive action. Therefore all of the motions for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
16
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary
17
injunction (Docket Nos. 48, 49, 55, 57 and 66) be denied.
18
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
19
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-
20
one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
21
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
22
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
23
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are
24
\\\\
25
\\\\
26
\\\\
2
1
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
2
District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: October 7, 2011
4
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
3
8
jeff3008.57.wpd
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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?