(PC) Calloway v. CDCR ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, No. 2:16-CV-2532-WBS-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 41, for injunctive relief. 20 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, including 21 temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, 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 to prevent the “CHCF-Stockton Defendants” from alleged 10 acts of retaliation and denial of access to the courts. See ECF No. 41, pgs. 1-2. Plaintiff asks the 11 Court to prevent what he claims are “retaliatory transfers” out of the California Health Care 12 Facility (CHCF), where Plaintiff states he is able to obtain necessary medical care. Id. at 6. 13 The Court finds that injunctive relief is not appropriate at this time. Specifically, Plaintiff 14 has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of this claims in this case, which relate 15 to denial of medical care and not alleged retaliation or denial of access to the courts. Further, in 16 the current motion Plaintiff merely lists “CHCF-Stockton Defendants” but does not name any 17 particular individuals. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is seeking injunctive 18 relief against individuals who are actually defendants to this action. Finally, Plaintiff has not 19 demonstrated that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury. In this regard, the Court notes that 20 Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Health Care Facility and Plaintiff has not provided 21 any evidence indicating that he will be transferred out of this facility. The Court additionally 22 notes that Documents attached to Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief show Plaintiff is 23 classified as a “high risk” medical inmate who requires a “renal diet.” Id. at 11. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for 2 | injunctive relief, ECF No. 41, be denied. 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)(1). 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: June 13, 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