Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01831/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01831-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

David RADEMAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. JUAREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF 

No. 43)

Plaintiff seeks various preliminary injunctions in his civil-rights lawsuit against 

prison officials. But he fails to make the required showing for such relief. And in any event,

the injunctions he seeks are outside this Court’s power to grant in this lawsuit.

BACKGROUND

In this action, inmate David Rademaker claims that prison administrators refused to 

let him participate in the institution’s kosher-diet program due to his mental disability. 

(ECF No. 1, at 3.) Construing his present motion liberally, Rademaker now seeks the 

following injunctive relief:

1. An order for the prison “to find his [stolen] property” (ECF No. 43, at 7);

2. “[M]eaningful[] access” to the law library (id. at 2);

3. A guarantee that his legal mail remain “confidential” (id. at 2-3);

Case 3:18-cv-01831-WQH-AGS Document 57 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

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

4. Access to legal supplies, such as “grievance forms,” additional “paper to write 

on,” (id. at 5), a “pen [with] black or blue ink,” (id. at 4), and standard forms to 

reply to defendants’ discovery devices (id. at 4-5);

5. Access to records from the July 2019 knife attack on him (id. at 4-5); and

6. A “doctor to examine [Rademaker’s] mental state.” (Id. at 7.)

DISCUSSION

The purpose of a pre-judgment injunction is “not to conclusively determine the rights 

of the parties but to balance the equities as the litigation moves forward.” Trump v. Int’l 

Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017). It is “an extraordinary remedy” 

that is “never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To meet that high threshold, plaintiffs must typically show that: (1) they 

are “likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,” and (4) “an 

injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 

1217 (9th Cir. 2017). Alternatively, “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 . . . factors are satisfied.” Id. (citation and quotation 

marks omitted).

Rademaker requests injunctive relief to stop prison staff from frustrating his ability 

to litigate his case. But even presuming that he has shown a likelihood of “irreparable 

harm,” Rademaker has made absolutely no showing that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits (or that there are “serious questions going to the merits”), that the balance of equities 

tips in his favor, or that a preliminary injunction is in the public’s interest. See Alliance for 

the Wild Rockies, 865 F.3d at 1217. Since he has not even attempted to show three of the 

four required factors, his motion should be denied. See id. at 1223 (“[A] party seeking a 

preliminary injunction must satisfy all four factors.”).

Case 3:18-cv-01831-WQH-AGS Document 57 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

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

Even if Rademaker could make the necessary showing, a separate procedural hurdle 

would be fatal here: This Court does not have authority to issue an injunction “[w]hen a 

plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint.” Pac. Radiation 

Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). The relationship 

between “the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in 

the underlying complaint” must be “sufficiently strong” so that “the preliminary injunction 

would grant ‘relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.’” Id. at 636

(quoting De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).

Rademaker’s complaint consists of one claim regarding access to kosher meals. 

(ECF No. 1, at 5.) In the complaint, he seeks actual and punitive damages, as well as an 

injunction that “Defendants . . . be ordered to ensure Plaintiff is able to practice his Jewish 

faith in co[n]formity with its doctrine.” (Id.) The character of the final relief he could 

receive—money and access to kosher meals—has nothing to do with his motion’s requests 

for the return of unrelated stolen property, law-library access, confidential-mail guarantees, 

provision of legal supplies, records from an unrelated inmate assault, or a doctor’s 

examination. Some of those requests may be the bases for standalone lawsuits, but this 

Court lacks authority to issue preliminary injunctive relief based on issues completely 

unrelated to Rademaker’s access-to-kosher-meals claim. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, 

LLC, 810 F.3d at 636. So, the motion should also be denied for this reason.

CONCLUSION

This Court recommends that Rademaker’s motion for injunctive relief be DENIED.

Within 14 days of being served with this report, the parties must file any objections. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The party receiving any such objection has 14 days to file a

response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

Dated: January 23, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01831-WQH-AGS Document 57 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3