Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00848/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00848-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIM DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARION SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-0848-MCE-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 

22).

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 

moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser 

standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer 

controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 

Case 2:19-cv-00848-MCE-DMC Document 26 Filed 01/22/20 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

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot, 

however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking 

injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another 

prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an 

expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

In this case, plaintiff seeks an order directing prison officials to return his legal 

property. The court finds injunctive relief is not warranted for several reasons. First, plaintiff 

does not seek relief from any party defendant. Rather, plaintiff seeks relief from unspecified 

individuals referred to collectively in the motion. Second, plaintiff has not alleged the likelihood 

of suffering irreparable injury. Third, plaintiff cannot establish a likelihood of success on the 

merits as would justify preliminary injunctive relief because the merits of his case are not related 

to return of his legal property. Here, plaintiff’s claim concerns the alleged use of excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief implicates a 

potential First Amendment violation to the extent plaintiff asserts the denial of his legal materials 

impedes his access to the courts. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00848-MCE-DMC Document 26 Filed 01/22/20 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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief (ECF No. 22) be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 22, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00848-MCE-DMC Document 26 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 3