(PC) Corral v. Melgarejo et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/03/19 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 26 be denied. MOTION 26 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MELGAREJO, 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 for injunctive relief (ECF No.
26) in which plaintiff requests the court order the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to return his legal property. 1
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
Plaintiff’s motion also seeks an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. By separate
order issued on September 24, 2019, that motion has been granted. See ECF No. 27.
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).
In this case, plaintiff seeks an order directing CDCR to return his legal property.
The court finds issuance of such an order is not appropriate for two reasons. First, plaintiff has
not demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable injury absent an order for return of his legal
property. In this regard, the court notes plaintiff does not describe the nature of the legal property
at issue or why he cannot proceed at this stage of the litigation without it. Second, CDCR is not a
party to this action.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief (ECCF No. 26) 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?