1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL DAVID CARR, No. 2:24-cv-01680 AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 DANIEL E. CUEVA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 without a lawyer. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s 20 motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 6. 21 By separate order, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and gave him the option of 22 proceeding immediately on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against 23 defendant Dr. Dail, or, of amending his complaint to fix the identified defects with the claim 24 against defendant Cueva. 25 I. Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 26 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking this court to order 27 defendant Cueva, the Warden of the California Medical Facility, to restore his in cell feeding 28 program for 90 days while he exhausts his administrative remedies within the prison on this issue. 1 Absent such relief, plaintiff contends that he will be denied adequate nutrition. 2 II. Legal Standards Governing Injunctive Relief 3 “A preliminary injunction... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a 4 device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before 5 judgment.” Sierra On–Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 6 A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of “a very far-reaching power not to be indulged 7 in except in a case clearly warranting it.” Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 8 (9th Cir. 1964). It is an “‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’; it is never awarded as of right.” 9 Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citation omitted). 10 “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate 11 ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 12 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 13 is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 14 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (internal quotations omitted). 15 The Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale test for a preliminary injunction has been incorporated into the 16 Supreme Court’s four-part Winter standard. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 17 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the sliding scale approach allowed a stronger showing 18 of one element to offset a weaker showing of another element). “In other words, ‘serious 19 questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can 20 support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also 21 met.” Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1131-32. Additionally, in cases brought by prisoners involving 22 conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no 23 further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the 24 least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 25 A motion for preliminary injunction must be supported by “[e]vidence that goes beyond 26 the unverified allegations of the pleadings.” Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Castle, No. C-11- 27 00896-SI, 2011 WL 5882878, *3, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135316, *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) 28 (citation omitted). The plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of establishing the merits 1 of his or her claims. See Winter, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 2 In this case, plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction requiring the prison warden where he is 3 confined to grant him a chrono for in cell feeding for 90 days. A mandatory injunction orders a 4 party to take action. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 5 879 (9th Cir. 2009). Because a mandatory injunction “’goes well beyond simply maintaining the 6 status quo… [it] is particularly disfavored.’” Id. (internal alterations omitted). “In general, 7 mandatory injunctions ‘are not granted unless extreme or very serious damage will result and are 8 not issued in doubtful cases or where the injury complained of is capable of compensation in 9 damages.’” Id. (quoting Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 1979)). 10 III. Analysis 11 The undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be 12 denied for several reasons. First, the undersigned has screened plaintiff’s complaint and 13 determined that it does not state a claim for relief against defendant Cueva who is the subject of 14 the preliminary injunction motion. As a result, defendant Cueva will not be served with the 15 complaint and will not be required to respond at this juncture. An injunction against an individual 16 who is not a party to the action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 17 Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 18 Secondly, although plaintiff alleges that he will not receive sufficient nutrition without 19 injunctive relief, he has not provided any evidence to substantiate these allegations. See Herb 20 Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm't Mgmt., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Those seeking 21 injunctive relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.”). 22 Even plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any evidence that he has previously been granted in 23 cell feeding due to his medical condition. Absent such evidence, plaintiff does not meet the 24 standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d at 25 1127. 26 For all these reasons, it is recommended that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 27 injunction be denied. 28 ///// 1 IV. Plain Language Summary for Party Proceeding Without an Attorney 2 Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 3 || the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 4 | in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 5 The undersigned magistrate judge is recommending that your motion for a preliminary 6 || injunctive relief be denied. If you do not agree with this decision, you have 21 days to explain 7 || why it is not correct.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL DAVID CARR, No. 2:24-cv-01680 AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 DANIEL E. CUEVA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 without a lawyer. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s 20 motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 6. 21 By separate order, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and gave him the option of 22 proceeding immediately on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against 23 defendant Dr. Dail, or, of amending his complaint to fix the identified defects with the claim 24 against defendant Cueva. 25 I. Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 26 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking this court to order 27 defendant Cueva, the Warden of the California Medical Facility, to restore his in cell feeding 28 program for 90 days while he exhausts his administrative remedies within the prison on this issue. 1 Absent such relief, plaintiff contends that he will be denied adequate nutrition. 2 II. Legal Standards Governing Injunctive Relief 3 “A preliminary injunction... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a 4 device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before 5 judgment.” Sierra On–Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 6 A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of “a very far-reaching power not to be indulged 7 in except in a case clearly warranting it.” Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 8 (9th Cir. 1964). It is an “‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’; it is never awarded as of right.” 9 Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citation omitted). 10 “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate 11 ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 12 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 13 is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 14 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (internal quotations omitted). 15 The Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale test for a preliminary injunction has been incorporated into the 16 Supreme Court’s four-part Winter standard. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 17 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the sliding scale approach allowed a stronger showing 18 of one element to offset a weaker showing of another element). “In other words, ‘serious 19 questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can 20 support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also 21 met.” Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1131-32. Additionally, in cases brought by prisoners involving 22 conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no 23 further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the 24 least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 25 A motion for preliminary injunction must be supported by “[e]vidence that goes beyond 26 the unverified allegations of the pleadings.” Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Castle, No. C-11- 27 00896-SI, 2011 WL 5882878, *3, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135316, *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) 28 (citation omitted). The plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of establishing the merits 1 of his or her claims. See Winter, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 2 In this case, plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction requiring the prison warden where he is 3 confined to grant him a chrono for in cell feeding for 90 days. A mandatory injunction orders a 4 party to take action. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 5 879 (9th Cir. 2009). Because a mandatory injunction “’goes well beyond simply maintaining the 6 status quo… [it] is particularly disfavored.’” Id. (internal alterations omitted). “In general, 7 mandatory injunctions ‘are not granted unless extreme or very serious damage will result and are 8 not issued in doubtful cases or where the injury complained of is capable of compensation in 9 damages.’” Id. (quoting Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 1979)). 10 III. Analysis 11 The undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be 12 denied for several reasons. First, the undersigned has screened plaintiff’s complaint and 13 determined that it does not state a claim for relief against defendant Cueva who is the subject of 14 the preliminary injunction motion. As a result, defendant Cueva will not be served with the 15 complaint and will not be required to respond at this juncture. An injunction against an individual 16 who is not a party to the action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 17 Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 18 Secondly, although plaintiff alleges that he will not receive sufficient nutrition without 19 injunctive relief, he has not provided any evidence to substantiate these allegations. See Herb 20 Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm't Mgmt., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Those seeking 21 injunctive relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.”). 22 Even plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any evidence that he has previously been granted in 23 cell feeding due to his medical condition. Absent such evidence, plaintiff does not meet the 24 standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d at 25 1127. 26 For all these reasons, it is recommended that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 27 injunction be denied. 28 ///// 1 IV. Plain Language Summary for Party Proceeding Without an Attorney 2 Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 3 || the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 4 | in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 5 The undersigned magistrate judge is recommending that your motion for a preliminary 6 || injunctive relief be denied. If you do not agree with this decision, you have 21 days to explain 7 || why it is not correct. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 8 | Recommendations.” The district judge assigned to your case will make the final decision. 9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs request for a ruling on his motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 9) 11 || is GRANTED based on the recommendation contained herein. 12 2. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. 13 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 14 | (ECF No. 6) be denied. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within twenty-one days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 20 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 21 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 22 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 || DATED: October 10, 2024 ~ 24 Mhun—lChne ALLISON CLAIRE 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28