Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01262/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01262-1/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

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

MARIO RICHARD MADRID,

CDCR #AP-3673,

Case

No. 

15cv1262 GPC (WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

(ECF No. 4)

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Emergency Injunctive

Relief.” (ECF No. 4.) In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks an Order from this Court removing

the San Diego Superior Court Judge and Deputy District Attorney assigned to his

pending State criminal matter. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief 

The purpose of a preliminary injunction isto preserve the status quo if the balance

of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene

to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. 

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a

1 15cv1262 GPC (WVG)

Case 3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG Document 6 Filed 07/15/15 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

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.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)

(citation omitted)(citations omitted). 

In addition to thistraditional test, the NinthCircuit has also applied an “alternative

standard,” whereby injunctive relief may issue when Plaintiff demonstrates “either a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury”

or that “serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his

favor.” Ranchers Cattleman Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. United

States Dept. of Ag., 415 F.3d 1078, 1092 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Save Our Sonoran, Inc.

v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Here, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding his

claims. Plaintiff is currently in the process of facing criminal charges and requests that

this Court intervene in the state court’s proceedings. However, the Court declines to do

so. A federal court cannot interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting

injunctive relief absent a showing of the state’s bad faith or harassment, or a showing

that the statute challenged is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional

prohibitions.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46, 53-54 (1971). 

Younger abstention is appropriate if four criteria are met: (1) state judicial

proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate an important state interest;

and (3) the state proceedings offer an adequate opportunity to litigate federal questions;

and (4) the federal court action would “enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect

of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger

disapproves.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce PAC v. City of San Jose,

546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, based on Plaintiff’s allegations that he has

ongoing criminal proceedings in state court and requests this Court’s intervention,

abstention pursuant to the Younger doctrine is warranted.

2 15cv1262 GPC (WVG)

Case 3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG Document 6 Filed 07/15/15 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

II. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby:

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4) without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

3 15cv1262 GPC (WVG)

Case 3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG Document 6 Filed 07/15/15 Page 3 of 3