(PC) Peets v. Brown et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOUIS IVESTER PEETS,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JERRY BROWN, JR., et al.,
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 (ECF No. 13) for injunctive
The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the
moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser
standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer
controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,
1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an
injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public
interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot,
however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio
Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking
injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another
prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an
expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975);
Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
In this case, plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendants to cease excluding
plaintiff from job assignments because he is Jewish, reverse a guilty disciplinary finding, change
plaintiff’s classification score, expunge traces of the disciplinary write-up, and correct and re-
issue certain documents. The court finds injunctive relief is not warranted because plaintiff has
not alleged any facts to show that it is likely plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent an
Based on the foregoing the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief (ECF No.13) be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: October 3, 2019
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?