Alexander v. Madden et al
Filing
25
ORDER Denying 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/16/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES DANIEL ALEXANDER,
Case No.: 3:15-cv-002498-GPC-AGS
Petitioner,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,
15
[Dkt. No. 24]
Respondent.
16
17
Before the Court is Petitioner Alexander’s motion for preliminary injunction
18
and/or temporary restraining order. Dkt. No. 24. Upon review of the moving papers, the
19
applicable law and for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.
20
On November 3, 2015, Petition filed for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
21
Dkt. No. 1 at 1. In it, Petitioner argues that the state’s court’s failure to grant him prison
22
conduct credits — i.e., days off of his sentence for good behavior — violates the
23
fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause because he is not being treated the same
24
as similarly situated prisoners. Id. at 6. Petitioner further argues that Section 667(e)(2)
25
of the California Penal Code “does not prevent CDCR [California Department of
26
Corrections and Rehabilitation] from granting Petitioner prison conduct credits” and that
27
he is a “class of one” for purposes of his equal protection claim. Id. Accordingly,
28
Petitioner argues that the state court’s denial of his state habeas petition resulted in a
1
3:15-cv-002498-GPC-AGS
1
decision that was contrary to, and an unreasonable application of, clearly established
2
federal law. Id.
3
On July 27, 2017, nunc pro tunc June 29, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant motion
4
for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Dkt. No. 24 at 2. In the
5
motion, petitioner states that he is “not being provided equal treatment compared to
6
similarly situated, and virtually identically situated, prisoners” with regards to the
7
granting of good time credits. Id. (emphasis removed). He goes on to argue that the
8
state’s failure to uphold his fourteenth amendment rights is causing him irreparable harm
9
because of his “continued incarceration.” Id. at 2 (“Any person being imprisoned, in
10
violation of their constitutional rights is being injured.”). Then, in his prayer for relief,
11
Petitioner asks the court to issue “an immediate order for a preliminary injunction or a
12
temporary restraining order” that: (1) “requires CDCR to retroactively apply the newly
13
implemented good conduct credit provision of the CCR [California Code of
14
Regulations]” and (2) requires CDCR to repeal the language contained within Section
15
2249.1(a)(1) and 3490(a)(1) of title 15 of the CCR. Dkt. No. 24 at 4.
16
17
DISCUSSION
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”
18
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “In each case,
19
courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each
20
party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Id. (citing Amoco Prod. Co.
21
v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987) (internal citations omitted)). As such, “the grant of
22
a preliminary injunction is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge.” Evans
23
v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Comm’n, 736 F.3d 1298, 1307 (9th Cir. 2013).
24
This discretion allows courts to properly evaluate when it is appropriate to grant
25
preliminary relief in light of the “infinite variety of situations which may confront it.”
26
A.L.K. Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 440 F.2d 761, 763 (3d Cir. 1971).
27
28
District courts exercise this discretion according to a four-factor test mandated by
traditional principles of equity. ebay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391
2
3:15-cv-002498-GPC-AGS
1
(2006). The test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that she is (1) likely to succeed on the
2
merits, (2) likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that
3
the balance of equities tips in her favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
4
Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is the
5
same as that for a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal. v. Orrin W.
6
Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); see also Koller v. Brown, 224 F. Supp. 3d 871,
7
875 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
8
Even construing Petitioner’s motion liberally, see Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
9
342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted), it does not satisfy the four elements of
10
this test. Petitioner states that he will suffer irreparable harm in the form of “continued
11
incarceration,” Dkt. No. 24 at 3, but irreparable injury is just one of the four elements that
12
must be satisfied in order to obtain a preliminary injunction or restraining order.
13
Petitioner makes no argument about why he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
14
claims, why the balance of equities tips in his favor, or why the injunction is in the public
15
interest. See generally Dkt. No. 24. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion must be denied.
16
Moreover and even assuming that Petitioner had made arguments under all four
17
elements of the Winter test, the Court almost certainly would have denied the motion
18
because the relief Petitioner seeks is improper. Petitioner has asked this Court to issue an
19
injunction or restraining order repealing a California state law provision regarding good
20
time credits. Petitioner has also asked the Court to require the CDCR to retroactively
21
apply a good conduct provision passed on May 1, 2017. These requests, however, are not
22
properly before the Court because they were not raised in Petitioner’s original habeas
23
petition. See generally Dkt. No. 1. Thus, even if Plaintiff had met the elements of the
24
preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, the Court still would have denied the
25
relief requested.
26
27
28
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order.
////
3
3:15-cv-002498-GPC-AGS
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
Dated: August 16, 2017
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:15-cv-002498-GPC-AGS
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?