(PC) Moore v. Mendoza ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS J. MOORE, No. 2:20-cv-1397 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MENDOZA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. By order filed May 17, 2021, plaintiff was provided fourteen days in which to re-file his 20 motion bearing his signature. On June 7, 2021, plaintiff filed what appears to be a proposed order 21 on his prior motion, accompanied by a signature page, bearing his signature, and dated May 30, 22 2021. The court liberally construes both filings as plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. As set 23 forth below, plaintiff’s motion should be denied. 24 I. Operative Pleading 25 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendant 26 Correctional Officer Mendoza based on plaintiff’s claim that defendant Mendoza used 27 unnecessary excessive force on plaintiff on July 15, 2019, at the California Medical Facility 28 (“CMF”) in the mental health crisis unit. (ECF No. 13.) 1 II. Motion for Injunctive Relief 2 A. Applicable Law 3 A temporary restraining order may issue upon a showing “that immediate and irreparable 4 injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in 5 opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order 6 (“TRO”) is essentially the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l. Sales 7 Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Because our analysis is 8 substantially identical for the injunction and the TRO, we do not address the TRO separately.”). 9 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he “is likely to succeed 10 on the merits, . . . likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, . . . the 11 balance of equities tips in his favor, and . . . an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 12 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Ninth Circuit has held that, even if 13 the moving party cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, injunctive relief may issue if 14 “serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the 15 plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that 16 there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” 17 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 18 omitted). Under either formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief should be 19 denied if the probability of success on the merits is low. See Johnson v. California State Bd. of 20 Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips 21 decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is 22 a fair chance of success on the merits.’ ” (quoting Martin v. Int'l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 23 675 (9th Cir. 1984))). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant 24 threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. 25 Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary 26 remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (citation omitted). 27 In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 28 injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the 1 court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 2 harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 3 Finally, the pendency of an action does not give the court jurisdiction over prison officials 4 in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United 5 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this 6 action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 7 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. An injunction against individuals who are not parties to the 8 action is strongly disfavored. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 9 (1969). 10 B. Discussion 11 Plaintiff fails to address the elements required under Winter. Plaintiff claims he fears for 12 his safety, fears intimidation and fears abuse of his defendant’s authority, and seeks an order 13 stopping “defendant from using threats of violence, acts of intimidation to incite fear, and abuse 14 of his authority to adversely impact plaintiff’s mental and emotional health.” (ECF No. 30 at 2.) 15 In his subsequent filing, plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendant “and all persons acting in 16 concert” with defendant to be restrained from being around plaintiff, and that plaintiff not be 17 housed at CMF during the pendency of this action. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff claims he will suffer 18 reprisals for bringing this action. (Id.) However, plaintiff’s motion is devoid of specific facts 19 demonstrating the basis for his claimed fears. In addition, at some point after plaintiff filed his 20 initial motion, he was transferred to the California Health Care Facility in Stockton (ECF No. 34), 21 so his request for relief is now moot since he is no longer housed at CMF. Due to plaintiff’s 22 transfer to a different prison, plaintiff cannot demonstrate a threat of imminent irreparable harm 23 absent injunctive relief. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 130-31. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions 25 (ECF Nos. 30 & 35) be denied. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 3 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 4 | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: June 10, 2021 Foci) Aharon | tmoor397 ps UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28