(PC) Murray v. Aung ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY MURRAY, No. 2:19-cv-2114 JAM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN, et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, has filed a motion for injunctive relief. ECF No. 50. He requests that the court order 19 follow-up treatment with an off-site pain specialist to manage the high levels of pain he 20 experiences from a brain tumor, because defendants are ignoring his need for treatment. Id. 21 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 22 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 23 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 24 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). Furthermore, mandatory 25 preliminary injunctions like plaintiff seeks, as opposed to those which preserve the status quo, are 26 “particularly disfavored” and “the district court should deny such relief unless the facts and law 27 clearly favor the moving party.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Calif., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994) 28 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th 1 |} Cir. 2015) (plaintiff seeking mandatory injunction “must establish that the law and facts clearly 2 || favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” (emphasis in original)). 3 Plaintiff has failed to show any of the elements necessary to warrant a grant of injunctive 4 || relief. There is no indication that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, and 5 || though plaintiff alleges that defendants have intentionally refused to provide him with necessary 6 || treatment, he has not provided any evidence that supports this claim. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. 7 | Fla. Entm’t Memt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Those seeking injunctive relief 8 | must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.”). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary 10 || injunctive relief (ECF No. 50) be DENIED. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 13 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 16 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 17 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 18 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 | DATED: March 21, 2022 ~ 20 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28