(PC) Lewis v. Garcia ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, No. 2:20-CV-0399-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 P. GARCIA, 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 for injunctive relief, ECF No. 19 55. 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 || imyunction; (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 In this case, Plaintiff seeks an order directed to defendant parties who are current 10 || or former prison officials at the California Health Care Facility, a prison within the California 11 || Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See ECF No. 55. The docket reflects, however, 12 | that Plaintiff was released from state custody and is not in county custody at the Stanton 13 || Correctional Facility. See ECF Nos. 64, 65 66, and 68 (notices of change of address). In the 14 || present absent evidence of any expectation of being transferred back to state custody at the 15 || California Medical Facility, Plaintiff's motion is moot. See Prieser, 422 U.S. at 402-03; Johnson, 16 | 948 F.3d at 519. 17 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for 18 || myunctive relief, ECF No. 55, be DENIED as moot. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 20 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 21 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 22 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 23 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 24 || Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 | Dated: January 23, 2024 Co 27 DENNIS M. COTA 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE