(PC) Bradford v. Watts ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND ALFORD BRAFORD, No. 2:21-CV-1846-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 V. WATTS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 19 15. 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 alleges that Defendants Delgato, Lor, Mbata, Gomez, and Donahus 10 “delivered Plaintiff’s legal mail, personal property, legal property, and government [] stimulus 11 funds” to a fellow inmate, Defendant Watts. ECF No. 1, pg. 3. Defendants instructed Defendant 12 Watts to retrieve Plaintiff’s belongings that were set outside his cell. Id. at 4. Included in the 13 legal mail was a judgment abstract containing, among other things, personal information such as 14 family address, contact information, date of birth, Social Security Number, and full name. Id. at 15 3. Plaintiff states that the Defendants did this “to steal Plaintiff’s identity and cash his checks.” 16 Id. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Watts was informed “by the prison guards” that 17 Plaintiff is a “pedophile-child molester, rapist, sex offender.” Id. 18 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Mbata issued a “bogus” disciplinary citation 19 charging him with indecent exposure while Plaintiff was changing his diaper and cleaning 20 himself. Id. at 4. Plaintiff filed several emergency appeals against Defendants. Id. Defendants 21 Donahue and DeJesus “kept the legal papers and support documents attached to the appeals to 22 deny all meaningful access to court, exhaustion and seeking redress for relief he is entitled to.” 23 Id. 24 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “failed to protect and repeatedly retaliated against 25 Plaintiff” for beating up a prison guard. Id. Plaintiff states that “the CDCR prison guards have 26 repeatedly stolen his legal/personal property.” Id. Plaintiff continues saying, “There is an active 27 and ongoing conspiracy to commit murder against Plaintiff and obstruction of justice so 28 Plaintiff’s life is in jeopardy.” Id. 1 The Court finds that preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate in this case. 2 | Specifically, Plaintiff's allegations do not indicate the likelihood of irreparable harm absent Court 3 | intervention. Additionally, while the Court has determined that some claims are appropriate for 4 | service, Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended complaint addressing deficient claim, nor has the 5 | Court ordered service on any defendant. In this procedural context, and in light of the assertions 6 | in Plaintiffs motion, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his 7 || property claims. 8 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion, ECF 9 | No, 15, for preliminary injunctive relief 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: March 9, 2022 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28