(PC) Rojas v. Sacramento County Superior Court ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EUGENE ROJAS, No. 2:22-CV-0379-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 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. 6, for injunctive 20 relief. 21 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 22 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 23 moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See 24 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 25 Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser 26 standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer 27 controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 28 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 1 | likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 2 || injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 3 || interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot, 4 || however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio 5 || Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking 6 || injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another 7 || prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an 8 || expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 9 || Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). 10 In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order preventing prison officials from “depriving 11 | funds” for an investigator. See ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has not, however, explained how denial of 12 | funding for an investigator would result in irreparable injury. Nor has Plaintiff identified at this 13 || early stage of the proceedings (before the complaint has been screened) that he has any 14 | particularly likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff has sufficient 15 || funds in his prison trust account or from other non-public sources, Plaintiff has not explained how 16 || prison officials would be able to bar Plaintiff from using those funds to pay for a private 17 || investigator or any other services in furtherance of his litigation. 18 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion, ECF 19 | No. 6, for injunctive relief be denied. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 21 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 22 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 23 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 24 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 25 || Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 || Dated: September 12, 2022 Co 27 DENNIS M. COTA 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE