Jackson v. Walker et al
Filing
44
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/29/2016 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 40 motion for injunctive relief be denied. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 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
11
CHRISTOPHER JACKSON,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:11-CV-3167-TLN-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
J. WALKER, et al.,
Defendants.
/
17
18
19
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 40).
20
21
The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a
22
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the
23
moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See
24
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res.
25
Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser
26
standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer
1
1
controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,
2
1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is
3
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an
4
injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public
5
interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374).
6
In this case, plaintiff states:
7
To the Honorable District Judge T.L. Nunley, on 9-9-15, I was
entering the law library on C-Facility, of C.S.P.–Sacramento with my legal
work in hand, including a copy of my Amended Complaint in this lawsuit.
I was ordered to the holding cages in the C-Fac. Sallyport and my legal
work taken.
I was ordered to strip search and my legal work was examined.
Correctional Officers that are Defendants in that suit was present and
when they seen their names, they became very hostile, aggressive, and
threatening. Making statements like “Your legal books, and all your legal
papers are going in the trash,” “We tired of your 602's, lawsuits, and
complaining.”
I was sent to Administrative Segregation Unit on issues unrelated
to my legal work and there is no legitimate reason for them (C.O.’s) to
throw away my legal work, including all my material evidence in this case,
and my books (legal), other than to stop me from bringing this lawsuit to
justice.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff has not demonstrated any irreparable harm that is likely to occur in the absence of
17
intervention by the court.
18
19
20
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief (Doc. 40) be denied.
21
22
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
23
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
24
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
25
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
26
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
2
1
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
2
3
4
5
DATED: February 29, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
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?