(PC) Hammler v. Diaz ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01890-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO GLOBAL TEL-LINK BE 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., DENIED 15 Defendants. ECF No. 43 16 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a complaint alleging a variety of claims related to a prison 19 gang murder that he witnessed. Pending is a motion for preliminary injunction requesting access 20 to a global tel-link. ECF No. 43. I recommend that the motion be denied. 21 Plaintiff argues that granting him access to a global tel-link tablet program would allow 22 him to make phone calls and communicate via text message and e-mail. ECF No. 43 at 1. 23 Plaintiff claims that access to this program would allow him to interview and obtain declarations 24 from non-incarcerated witnesses. Id. at 4-5. 25 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 26 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 27 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. 28 Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 1 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to 2 obtain a preliminary injunction.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th 3 Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, the injunctive relief sought must be 4 related to the claims brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s 5 Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on 6 claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). 7 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is “merely to preserve the relative position of the parties 8 until a trial on the merits can be held.” Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). 9 Plaintiff has failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is not granted 10 injunctive relief. The motion seeks to enhance plaintiff’s litigating position rather than to 11 preserve the status quo. Additionally, the underlying litigation is not related to plaintiff’s access 12 to the global tel-link system; the underlying litigation relates to constitutional violations that 13 occurred because plaintiff witnessed a murder. See ECF No. 13. The requested preliminary 14 injunction thus lies outside the scope of appropriate relief. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC, 15 810 F.3d at 636 (holding that there must be a “sufficient nexus between the request in a motion 16 for injunctive relief and the underlying claim itself”). 17 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for access to global 18 tel-link, ECF No. 43, be DENIED. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 22 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 23 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 24 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 25 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 26 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 27 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: _ March 4, 2024 ssn (aoe 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 g 9 10 il 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28