(PC) Walker v. Gates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G. DANIEL WALKER, No. 2:20-CV-2338-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 S. GATES, 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, ECF No. 9, for injunctive 19 relief, addenda filed in support thereof, ECF Nos. 10, supplemental declaration filed in opposition 20 thereto, ECF No. 19, and Plaintiff’s response, ECF No. 20. 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 Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to order that he be provided doctor-approved visual 11 | magnifiers as well as hearing device. Defendants’ supplemental declaration indicates that 12 | Plaintiff has been provided a hearing device. As to a visual magnifier, Plaintiff has not explained 13 | how he would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated a 14 | likelihood of success on the merits. 15 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for 16 | injunctive relief, ECF No. 9, be denied. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 18 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 20 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 21 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 22 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 | Dated: March 8, 2022 Sx