Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00239/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00239-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS PATRICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNAGA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF No. 15)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 29, 2016 motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 

15.) The motion seeks to have several individuals – some who are named as 

Defendants in this action and some who are not – transferred from Wasco State Prison, 

where Plaintiff was housed at the time of filing his motion. Plaintiff claimed that he was 

being sexually harassed and that female staff was being forced to have sex against their 

will. Attached to the motion are apparently unrelated minutes from proceedings in a 

separate case brought by Plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Central 

District of California. 

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 30 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

As an initial matter, the Court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief 

which would require directing parties not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. 

United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A 

federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 

persons not before the court.”). 

Furthermore, the Court finds no basis for awarding the relief Plaintiff requests. 

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, never 

awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “A 

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). 

Plaintiff heretofore has failed to state a cognizable claim and there presently is no 

operative pleading in this matter. The Court therefore cannot conclude that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits of any claims. Plaintiff also fails to suggest a real and 

immediate threat of irreparable injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 

101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury, and “[p]ast 

exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy 

regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present, adverse 

effects.”). He no longer is housed at Wasco State Prison and any threat of injury arising 

out of his placement in that facility appears to be moot. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 

395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991); see also

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court finds nothing 

to tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff’s favor. And, while the public has an interest in 

providing inmates with constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement, the record 

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 30 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

before the Court does not justify the Court substituting its judgment for that of 

correctional staff. These criteria not having been met, Plaintiff is not entitled to 

preliminary injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 

relief be DENIED.

The findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, the 

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond 

to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being 

served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 30 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 3