Calloway v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 45

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 06/13/22 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 41 be denied. Motion 41 referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-CV-2532-WBS-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 41, for injunctive relief.
The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, including

21

temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, 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,

27

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is

28

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an
1

1

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public

2

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot,

3

however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio

4

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking

5

injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another

6

prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an

7

expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975);

8

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
Here, Plaintiff seeks an order to prevent the “CHCF-Stockton Defendants” from alleged

9
10

acts of retaliation and denial of access to the courts. See ECF No. 41, pgs. 1-2. Plaintiff asks the

11

Court to prevent what he claims are “retaliatory transfers” out of the California Health Care

12

Facility (CHCF), where Plaintiff states he is able to obtain necessary medical care. Id. at 6.

13

The Court finds that injunctive relief is not appropriate at this time. Specifically, Plaintiff

14

has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of this claims in this case, which relate

15

to denial of medical care and not alleged retaliation or denial of access to the courts. Further, in

16

the current motion Plaintiff merely lists “CHCF-Stockton Defendants” but does not name any

17

particular individuals. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is seeking injunctive

18

relief against individuals who are actually defendants to this action. Finally, Plaintiff has not

19

demonstrated that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury. In this regard, the Court notes that

20

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Health Care Facility and Plaintiff has not provided

21

any evidence indicating that he will be transferred out of this facility. The Court additionally

22

notes that Documents attached to Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief show Plaintiff is

23

classified as a “high risk” medical inmate who requires a “renal diet.” Id. at 11.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief, ECF No. 41, be denied.

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

4

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

5

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

6

with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.

7

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v.

8

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9
10

Dated: June 13, 2022
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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