(PC) Newsome v. Inniss-Burton ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHELDON RAY NEWSOME, No. 2:19-CV-1862-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CHERYL INNISS-BURTON, 15 Defendant. 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. 57, for injunctive 19 relief. 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 Here, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring unnamed prison officials to return his legal 10 materials and provide him access to the prison law library. See ECF No. 57. The Court finds that 11 injunctive relief is not appropriate because: (1) he has not explained how he is likely to suffer 12 irreparable injury absent Court intervention; and (2) for the reasons discussed in the Court’s 13 February 16, 2022, findings and recommendations, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of 14 success on the merits. Moreover, Plaintiff does not name the prison officials alleged to be 15 responsible for lack of access to his legal materials or law library. As such, the Court cannot 16 determine whether such individuals are parties to the lawsuit. Finally, it appears that Plaintiff’s 17 request for injunctive relief has been rendered moot by a subsequent prison transfer. See ECF 18 No. 58 (notice of change of address). 19 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for 20 injunctive relief, ECF No. 57, be denied. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 24 with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 25 / / / 26 / /./ 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 2 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 | Dated: March 29, 2022 Ssvcqo_ 5 DENNIS M. COTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28