(PC) Corral v. Melgarejo et al

Filing 28

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-CV-3019-JAM-DMC-P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MELGAREJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

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 (ECF No.

19

26) in which plaintiff requests the court order the California Department of Corrections and

20

Rehabilitation (CDCR) to return his legal property. 1
The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a

21
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
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.
1

28

1

1

controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,

2

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is

3

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an

4

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public

5

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot,

6

however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio

7

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

8

In this case, plaintiff seeks an order directing CDCR to return his legal property.

9

The court finds issuance of such an order is not appropriate for two reasons. First, plaintiff has

10

not demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable injury absent an order for return of his legal

11

property. In this regard, the court notes plaintiff does not describe the nature of the legal property

12

at issue or why he cannot proceed at this stage of the litigation without it. Second, CDCR is not a

13

party to this action.

14
15

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief (ECCF No. 26) be denied.

16

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22
23

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

24
25
26
27
28
2