(PC) Lloyd v. Castillo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIAN JUAN LLOYD, 1:20-cv-00683-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE; 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 D. CASTILLO, et al., MOTIONS FOR STATUS; AND 15 Defendants. (Docs. 14-15) 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 17 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 18 (Doc. 4) 19 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 20 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that would grant him 21 authorization to wear a multicolored Rastafarian Crown and to eat a religious-based diet. For the 22 reasons set forth below, this motion should be denied. 23 The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a 24 preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 25 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to 26 27 prevent threatened injury that would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a 28 pending action. “A preliminary injunction ... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but 1 rather a device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of right before 2 judgment.” Sierra On–Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 3 A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far-reaching power not to be indulged except 4 in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 5 1964). 6 7 “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate 8 ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 9 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 10 is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc., v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009), 11 quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). In cases brought by 12 prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly 13 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary 14 15 relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). If 16 the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter 17 in question. Valley Force Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 18 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). Here, plaintiff is not yet proceeding on any cognizable claim. 19 Accordingly, there is no actual case or controversy in this case as of yet. Accordingly, the Court 20 ORDERS as follows: 21 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; 22 23 2. Plaintiff’s motions for status (Docs. 14, 15) are GRANTED; and 24 The Court RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and 25 preliminary injunction (Doc. 4) be DENIED. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 27 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 28 1 fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 2 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 3 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 5 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 12, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28