(PC) Ramirez v. Perez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISRAEL RAMIREZ, ) Case No. 1:22-cv-00564-JLT-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF BE DENIED ) 14 PEREZ, et al., ) (ECF No. 7) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Israel Ramirez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for emergency relief, filed May 26, 2022. The 20 Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction. 21 I. 22 LEGAL STANDARD 23 Because the Court construes Plaintiff's motion as a request for injunctive relief, the Court 24 recites the standards governing preliminary injunctions. The primary purpose of 25 a preliminary injunction is preservation of the status quo. See, e.g., Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872, 887 26 (9th Cir. 2020). More specifically, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is preservation the Court's 27 power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See, e.g., Univ. of Texas v. 28 Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981); Barth v. Montejo, No. 2:19-cv-1874-DB-P, 2021 WL 1291962, 1 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2021). It is meant to maintain the relative positions of the parties and prevent 2 irreparable loss of rights before a trial and final judgment. See, e.g., Camenisch, 451 U.S. at 3 395; Ramos, 975 F.3d at 887; Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020). 4 A preliminary injunction may assume two forms. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 5 & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2009). Prohibitory injunctions prevent a party from acting, thus 6 maintaining the status quo. Id. A mandatory injunction directs some responsible party to act. Id. at 7 879. 8 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary restraining 9 order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the moving party must show that 10 irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 11 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20–22 12 (2008)); see also All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). To the 13 extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing solely on the possibility of 14 irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. 15 City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); see Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127; Cottrell, 16 632 F.3d at 1131. Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to 17 succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the 18 balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. E.g., Winter, 555 19 U.S. at 20; Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. 20 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is not awarded as of right. Winter, 21 555 U.S. at 24; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. The burden to achieve injunctive relief is particularly high 22 when a party seeks a mandatory injunction. See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 23 2015). Mandatory injunctions go beyond an injunction preventing a party from acting, and thus 24 beyond mere maintenance of the status quo. Id. They require a party to act. Id. District courts must 25 deny requests for mandatory injunctions unless the law and facts clearly favor a moving party. Id. The 26 Court will not grant such requests in doubtful cases. Id. 27 /// 28 /// 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff effectively seeks a mandatory injunction directing he be released from prison. 4 Plaintiff cannot obtain a preliminary injunction compelling his release from incarceration. 5 Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a remedy for the violation 6 of constitutional rights by any person acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see, e.g., Hall 7 v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 8 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Section 1983 is not a vehicle for challenging the validity of 9 confinement. See, e.g., Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533–34 (2011) (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 10 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). Complaints for relief 11 turning on the circumstances of a prisoner's confinement may be brought in 12 a § 1983 action. See Skinner, 562 U.S. at 533–34; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927. 13 The exclusive remedy for a prisoner seeking immediate or speedier release from confinement, 14 however, is a writ of habeas corpus. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927; see Skinner, 562 U.S. at 533–34; Heck 15 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481–87 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (“[W]hen 16 a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he 17 seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that 18 imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus”). 19 Because a habeas petition is the exclusive method by which a prisoner may 20 seek release from custody, a temporary restraining order or injunction ordering a prisoner's release in a 21 civil rights action is inappropriate. See, e.g., Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927; Henson v. Corizon Health, No. 22 CV 19-04396-PHX-MTL (DMF), 2020 WL 2319937, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 11, 2020). If Plaintiff 23 wishes to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, he may file a petition for a writ 24 of habeas corpus. 25 III. 26 RECOMMENDATION 27 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 28 immediate release from incarceration (ECF No. 7) be DENIED. 1 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 2 || to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served wit 3 || this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Failure to fi 4 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 5 || 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 6 7 |/IT IS SO ORDERED. A (ee 8 || Dated: _May 31, 2022 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28