Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00912/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00912-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

KRISTOFFER ALLEN JOSEPHSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JOYCE OLSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-CV-0912-DAD-DMC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 

Court is Plaintiff's motion docketed as a motion for a temporary restraining order. See ECF No. 

4. 

 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)). When a mandatory injunction is sought – one that goes 

beyond simply maintaining the status quo during litigation – the moving party bears a "doubly 

demanding" burden and must establish that the law and facts clearly supports injunctive relief. 

See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Mandatory injunctions 

are "particularly disfavored" and "should not issue in doubtful cases." Id. (internal quotations 

Case 2:24-cv-00912-DAD-DMC Document 21 Filed 09/25/24 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

omitted). 

 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 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 Ninth Circuit also recognizes an additional 

standard: "if a plaintiff can only show that there are 'serious questions going to the merits' – a 

lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a preliminary injunction may still

issue if the 'balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, and the other two Winter

factors are satisfied.'" See Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 

2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottress, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). 

 To prevail on a motion for injunctive relief, "there must be a relationship between 

the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 

complaint." Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 

2015). Thus, there must be a nexus between the claims raised in the motion and the claims in the 

underlying complaint itself. See id. This nexus is satisfied where the preliminary injunction 

would grant "relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally." See id. (quoting 

De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). 

 The Court cannot 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). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:24-cv-00912-DAD-DMC Document 21 Filed 09/25/24 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

 Plaintiff's motion is filed on a California state court form. See ECF No. 4. The 

form is entitled "Application for Writ of Possession." Id. at 1. Plaintiff has checked boxes 

indicating that he is seeking ex parte relief and a temporary restraining order. See id. The 

remainder of the form is undecipherable. Attached to the form is a one-page list of items of 

personal property which Plaintiff claims were improperly seized. See id. at 3. From this, it 

appears that Plaintiff is seeking some form of injunctive relief with respect to seized property. 

The current motion does not allege that Plaintiff is under any threat of irreparable harm. Nor has 

Plaintiff set forth any facts to suggest a likelihood of success on the merits. 

 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for 

injunctive relief, ECF No. 4, 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: September 25, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00912-DAD-DMC Document 21 Filed 09/25/24 Page 3 of 3