(PC) Khademi v. Roseville Police Department ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVOOD KHADEMI, No. 2:21-CV-0966-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 13, captioned 20 “Combined Notice of Motions for Temporary Restraining Order with Notice of the Motion with 21 Discovery Request and the Demand for Jury Trial/Production of Transcript. . . .” To the extent 22 Plaintiff seeks some form of preliminary injunctive relief, the undersigned recommends 23 Plaintiff’s motion be denied for the reasons discussed below. 24 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 25 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 26 moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See 27 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 28 Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser 1 | standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer 2 | controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 3 } 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 4 | likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 5 | injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 6 | interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot, 7 | however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio 8 | Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking 9 | injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another 10 | prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an 11 || expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 12 | Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). 13 Here, Plaintiff's motion is rambling and quite difficult to decipher. Notably, it is 14 | not clear what form of injunctive relief he seeks, against whom, or for what reason. Furthermore, 15 | nothing in Plaintiff's filing suggests the likelihood of irreparable harm absent intervention by the 16 | Court. 17 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion, ECF 18 | No. 13, be denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 20 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 21 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 22 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 23 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 24 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 | Dated: February 4, 2022 Sx