Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01474/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01474-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAJHIKEEM WOODS, No. 2:15-cv-1474-JAM-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

KRAUSE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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 a court order to release

property (Doc. 7).

In his motion, plaintiff is requesting the court to order prison officials at the

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility to release his property. The court interprets this motion as a

request for injunctive relief. This case involves plaintiff’s claim that he was denied mental health

treatment at High Desert State Prison by the mental health professionals at that institution. 

Plaintiff has since been transferred, and is now being housed at the California Health Care

Facility. 

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

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

1

Case 2:15-cv-01474-JAM-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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

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). 

However, plaintiff has requested injunctive relief against individuals who are not

named as defendants in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who

are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). The request must, therefore, be denied. 

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

court order (Doc. 7) 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: August 26, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:15-cv-01474-JAM-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 2