(PC) Bustamante v. Spearman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ADOLFO BUSTAMANTE, No. 2:18-CV-0057-WBS-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. SCHUSTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for return of personal property. ECF No. 31. 19 The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for injunctive relief. 20 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 21 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 22 moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See 23 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 24 Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser 25 standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer 26 controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 27 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 28 likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 1 injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 2 interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot, 3 however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio 4 Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking 5 injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another 6 prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an 7 expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 8 Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). 9 Plaintiff’s complaint encompasses a claim for alleged violation of his First 10 Amendment right of access to the courts. See ECF No. 17. Plaintiff now seeks an order directing 11 the Acting Warden of California Medical Facility, and Ralph Diaz, the former Secretary of the 12 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to return Plaintiff’s legal and 13 personal property. ECF No. 31 at 2. Plaintiff contends that, in June 2020, the Superior Court of 14 California granted Plaintiff a writ of habeas corpus and ordered that Plaintiff be retried. Id. 15 Plaintiff contends that, as a result of the Superior Court’s ruling, CDCR placed his legal 16 documents into storage where he cannot access to it. Id. at 2–3. He broadly concludes that access 17 to the paperwork is necessary to be able to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests (which are 18 the subject of a motion to compel pending before the Court). Id. at 3. Plaintiff argues that he has a 19 legal right to access his documents and prepare a meaningful defense. 20 The Court finds injunctive relief is not warranted. First, Plaintiff has not shown a 21 likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment access to the courts claim. Plaintiff 22 has not actually alleged any actual injury. “Actual injury” is prejudice with respect to 23 contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or present a non- 24 frivolous claim. See Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2007). Second, outside of a 25 broad statement that he requires access to his stored property to respond to Defendant’s discovery 26 requests, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to suffer any irreparable harm. To the 27 extent Plaintiff is being denied access to the courts, he has a remedy at law in the form of his 28 instant action. Even assuming any actual injury giving rise to a basis for relief, Plaintiff 1 | erroneously seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not party to the present § 1983 2 | suit, which the Court cannot order. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 112. 3 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for 4 | injunctive relief, ECF No. 31, be denied. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 6 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)d). Within 14 days 7 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 8 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 9 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 10 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 | Dated: January 5, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 13 DENNIS M. COTA 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28