Palacios vs. Smith, et al.

Filing 52

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/21/2019 RECOMMENDING 51 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction be denied. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JORGE PALACIOS,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2500 TLN CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

KEVIN SMITH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed two notices regarding defendant

18

Smith’s “dirty tricks” and a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

19

(ECF Nos. 49-51.)

20

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court

21

may impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the

22

movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

23

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The

24

purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a fuller

25

hearing. The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for

26

issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832,

27

839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary

28

injunctions is “substantially identical”).
1

1

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [(1)] that he is likely to

2

succeed on the merits, [(2)] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

3

preliminary relief, [(3)] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [(4)] that an injunction is

4

in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations

5

omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held that “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance

6

of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary

7

injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and

8

that the injunction is in the public interest,” even if the moving party cannot show that he is likely

9

to succeed on the merits. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir.

10

2011). However, under either formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief should

11

be denied if the probability of success on the merits is low. Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of

12

Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips

13

decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is

14

a fair chance of success on the merits.’” (quoting Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670,

15

675 (9th Cir. 1984))).

16

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Smith confiscated his medication for twenty-three days in

17

November 2018 and that on July 30 and 31, 2019, Smith once again confiscated his medications,

18

including his cardio medication, in an attempt to put his life at risk in retaliation for filing this

19

lawsuit. (ECF Nos. 49-51.) He further asserts that Smith is attempting to transfer him to another

20

prison. (ECF Nos. 50, 51.) He requests that the court prevent defendant from having him

21

transferred and return his medications. (Id.)

22

Although plaintiff claims that his medications have been confiscated, he clarifies in one of

23

his notices that he is no longer allowed to keep them on his person and instead is now required to

24

take his medications at the window. (ECF No. 50 at 1.) Plaintiff is therefore not being denied

25

access to his medications and has not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm.

26

Furthermore, prisoners have no reasonable expectation that they will remain in any particular

27

facility and prison officials have broad authority to transfer prisoners from one facility to another.

28

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225, 228 (1976). “An inmate’s liberty interests are sufficiently
2

1

extinguished by his conviction so that the state may change his place of confinement even though

2

the degree of confinement may be different and prison life may be more disagreeable in one

3

institution than in another.” Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing

4

Meachum, 427 U.S. at 224-25; Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1982)). Accordingly,

5

the possibility of transfer alone is not sufficient to demonstrate an irreparable harm that would

6

warrant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction and plaintiff has failed to explain

7

what harm he would experience if he were transferred. Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that

8

he will suffer irreparable harm if he is not granted a temporary restraining order or preliminary

9

injunction and it will therefore be recommended that the motion be denied. Herb Reed Enters.,

10

LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Those seeking injunctive

11

relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.”).

12

Plaintiff is reminded that his claim about Smith confiscating his medication in November

13

2018 was dismissed from this action for failure to exhaust (ECF No. 41), and if he wants to

14

pursue that claim he will need to do so in a separate action after he has exhausted his

15

administrative remedies. He is further advised that filing notices and motions with the court is

16

not a substitute for the prison’s administrative appeals process and he cannot bypass that process

17

by doing so.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for temporary

18
19

restraining order or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 51) be denied.

20

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

21

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

22

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

23

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

24

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

25

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

26

////

27

////

28

////
3

1

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

2

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Dated: August 21, 2019

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6

13:pala2500.tro.f&r

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4