(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. 19, captioned “Notice 20 of Motion Consultation and the Motion Under Rule 231 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65) Temporary 21 Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction.” The identical motion filed in Khademi v. South 22 Placer County Jail, et al., 2:21-CV-1498-KJM-DB-P, is pending. To the extent Plaintiff seeks 23 some form of preliminary injunctive relief, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s motion be 24 denied for the reasons discussed below. 25 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 26 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 27 moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See 28 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 1 Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser 2 standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer 3 controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 4 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 5 likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 6 injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 7 interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot, 8 however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio 9 Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking 10 injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another 11 prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an 12 expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 13 Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). 14 As with Plaintiff’s prior motion for injunctive relief, which the Court has 15 recommended be denied, see ECF No. 22, Plaintiff’s motion is rambling and quite difficult to 16 decipher. Notably, it is not clear what form of injunctive relief he seeks, against whom, or for 17 what reason. Furthermore, nothing in Plaintiff’s filing suggests the likelihood of irreparable harm 18 absent intervention by the Court. 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion, ECF 2 | No. 19, be denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 5 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 6 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 7 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 8 | Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 | Dated: March 8, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28