(PC) Peets v. Brown et al

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/03/19 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 13 be denied. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 13 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. 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

LOUIS IVESTER PEETS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:18-CV-2469-KJM-DMC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JERRY BROWN, JR., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 13) for injunctive

19

relief.

20

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a

21

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, 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).

9

In this case, plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendants to cease excluding

10

plaintiff from job assignments because he is Jewish, reverse a guilty disciplinary finding, change

11

plaintiff’s classification score, expunge traces of the disciplinary write-up, and correct and re-

12

issue certain documents. The court finds injunctive relief is not warranted because plaintiff has

13

not alleged any facts to show that it is likely plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent an

14

injunction.

15
16

Based on the foregoing the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief (ECF No.13) be denied.

17

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23
24

Dated: October 3, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2