(PS) Wenzler v. Hamim et al

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/29/24 RECOMMENDING that the 11 Motion for Injunctive Relief be denied. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections due within 14 days of service of these findings and recommendations. (Licea Chavez, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELIZABETH ROSE WENZLER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:24-cv-02074-DAD-JDP (PS)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

v.
MALIK HAMIM, et al.,

ECF No. 11

15

Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

16
17
18

Plaintiff has filed a motion for injunctive relief. The motion centers around a list of

19

apparent grievances, bearing little obvious connection to each other. See ECF No. 11. For

20

example, plaintiff states that an unidentified person egged her car and stole her hubcaps, that she

21

suffered an injury to her spine and ankle from a car accident in October 2020, that an unidentified

22

woman came to her home looking for a cat, and that the children bounced balls in front of her

23

home. Id. at 1-2. The remainder of the motion consists of blurry, black and white photographs,

24

which appear to be pictures of an ankle, automobiles, and people on streets, as well as the door of

25

car. Id. at 3-12.

26

To obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff must show (1) likelihood of success on the merits;

27

(2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of

28

equities tips in [her] favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res.
1

1

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “The first factor under Winter is the most important—

2

likely success on the merits.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015).

3

Here, as indicated in my August 26, 2024 order, plaintiff has failed to state a claim—and

4

so she is not likely to succeed on the merits. She further makes no argument that absent

5

injunctive relief she will suffer irreparable harm; she fails to address any other prong of the test

6

for injunctive relief. As plaintiff has not shown irreparable harm, that the balance of equities

7

weighs in her favor, or that an injunction would serve the public interest in this case, I

8

recommend that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief,

9
10

ECF No. 11, be denied.

11

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

12

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

13

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

14

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

15

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed

16

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

17

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

18

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

19

1991).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
Dated:

August 29, 2024

23

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2