Hernandez v. Thomas
Filing
53
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 11/30/2018 RECOMMENDING 44 Motion for Injunctive Relief 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
ANTHONY HERNANDEZ,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:17-CV-1803-KJM-DMC-P
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THOMAS,
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 44).
19
Specifically, plaintiff seeks an order directing “Madera County Jail admin.” to provide him with
20
copy services and legal supplies.
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
27
controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,
28
1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is
1
1
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an
2
injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public
3
interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot,
4
however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio
5
Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking
6
injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another
7
prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an
8
expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975);
9
Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
10
In this case, the court finds injunctive relief is not appropriate. First, to the extent
11
defendant Thomas is not included among those individuals plaintiff refers to in his motion as
12
“Madera County Jail admin.,” the court is unable to issue an order directing conduct by non-
13
parties. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 112. Second, plaintiff has not established he is
14
likely to suffer irreparable harm absent the requested order. In particular, plaintiff has not
15
explained how his alleged lack of access to copy services or legal supplies results in any harm, let
16
alone harm that is irreparable. According to plaintiff, he is not being provided blank paper or
17
copy services in order to make required copies of his legal documents, necessitating him to make
18
copies by hand. Plaintiff’s own allegations indicate he is able to cure any harm being caused. As
19
such, the harm cannot be said to be irreparable.
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
2
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief (
Doc. 44) 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
11
Dated: November 30, 2018
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?