(PC) Rouser v. Covello

Opinion

WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:22-CV-1749-DAD-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PATRICK COVELLO, 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, ECF No. 10, for injunctive relief. 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)). 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 imyunction; (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 Court cannot, however, 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). Here, Plaintiff seeks an order directing prison officials to allow him to attend educational programming. See ECF No. 10. Plaintiff states that, absent educational programming, he is ineligible for parole consideration. See id. The Court finds that injunctive relief not appropriate. First, Plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief as against individuals who are named as defendants to this action. Second, the lack of access to education programming does not create a likelihood of irreparable harm. Third, Plaintiff cannot succeed on the merits of a claim relating to access to programming because there is no constitutional right to rehabilitation or programming. See Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 1982). Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for myunctive relief, ECF No. 10, 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)(1). 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. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 9, 2023 = S Co UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE