(PC) Davis 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 TIM DAVIS, No. 2:19-CV-0848-MCE-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MARION SPEARMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion for a protective order.” ECF No. 19 57. Plaintiff contends that he needs a protective order to guarantee that his constitutional rights 20 are not violated and that his right to receive exculpatory evidence through discovery is not 21 violated. Id. Plaintiff does not otherwise specify what relief he wishes the Court to provide. But 22 because he seeks an order to “ensure that his constitutional rights to fair court proceedings aren’t 23 violated,” the Court construes the motion as requesting the Court restrain a party from acting. See 24 id. The Court thus construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for injunctive relief.1 The undersigned 25 United States Magistrate Judge recommends denying the motion. 26 /// 27 1 The Court’s interpretation of Plaintiff’s motion is further informed by Plaintiff’s prior motion for injunctive relief and an “order for an intervention by the Court” to protect his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 47. The undersigned 28 United States Magistrate Judge recommended denying the previous motion. ECF No. 56. 1 I. ANALYSIS 2 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 3 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 4 moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See 5 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 6 Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser 7 standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer 8 controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 9 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 10 likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 11 injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 12 interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot, 13 however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio 14 Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking 15 injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another 16 prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an 17 expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 18 Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). 19 Plaintiff seeks an order protecting his constitutional rights to a fair trial and his 20 right to receive exculpatory evidence through discovery. ECF No. 57. Other than the implication 21 that he desires the Court to restrain some party from violating his rights, Plaintiff does not 22 indicate what relief he is requesting or the grounds on which he requests it. See id. 23 The Court finds injunctive relief is not warranted. First, it is unclear whom the 24 Plaintiff seeks to restrain. To the extent that he desires injunctive relief against a party who is not 25 party to his case, the Court lacks authority to order it. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 112; James 26 v. Scribner, No. CV 07–880–TUC–RCC, 2010 WL 3942844, at *2 (E.D. Ca. Oct. 4, 2010). 27 Second, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. To Plaintiff’s 28 credit, the deprivation of constitutional rights does constitute irreparable harm. E.g., Melendres v. 1 | Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012). But merely stating that he seeks a protective order to 2 | ensure his constitutional rights are protected does not establish that Plaintiff is likely to suffer 3 | irreparable harm. See, e.g., Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th 4 | Cir. 2011). A Plaintiff must demonstrate that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible. Id. 5 | Plaintiff has not done so. 6 7 II. RECOMMENDATION 8 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for 9 | injunctive relief ECF No. 57) be denied. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 13 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 14 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 15 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 | Dated: January 13, 2021 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28