(PC) Aleem v. Lizarraga ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FAROOQ ABDUL ALEEM, No. 2:18-cv-1210 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LIZARRAGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, has filed what appears to be a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 57.) 19 However, it is unclear what injunctive relief plaintiff seeks. Furthermore, 20 [a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is [(1)] likely to succeed on the merits, [(2)] that he is likely to suffer 21 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [(3)] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [(4)] that an injunction is in 22 the public interest. 23 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). The Ninth 24 Circuit has held that, even if the moving party cannot show a high likelihood of success on the 25 merits, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply 26 towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also 27 shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public 28 interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Under 1 | either formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied if the 2 | probability of success on the merits is low. Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 3 | 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (““[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the 4 | moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success 5 | on the merits.’” (quoting Martin v. Int'l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984))). 6 | Plaintiff has failed to address any of these required factors. The motion will be denied without 7 || prejudice to a motion that identifies the relief plaintiff seeks and addresses the factors necessary 8 | to warrant granting a preliminary injunction. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for preliminary 10 || injunction (ECF No. 57) is denied. 11 | Dated: December 14, 2020 CA rd ht / (g—, 12 CAROLYN K DELANEY 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 13:alee1210.pi 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28