Ronald Eugene James v. Ma

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-CV-2193-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and an 19 extension of time. See ECF No. 41. 20 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 21 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 22 moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See 23 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 24 Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). When a mandatory injunction is sought – one that goes 25 beyond simply maintaining the status quo during litigation – the moving party bears a "doubly 26 demanding" burden and must establish that the law and facts clearly support injunctive relief. See 27 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Mandatory injunctions are 28 "particularly disfavored" and "should not issue in doubtful cases." Id. (internal quotations 1 omitted). 2 To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing solely 3 on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even viable.” 4 Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under 5 Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; 6 (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance of 7 hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d 8 at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The Ninth Circuit also recognizes an additional 9 standard: "if a plaintiff can only show that there are 'serious questions going to the merits' – a 10 lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a preliminary injunction may still 11 issue if the 'balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, and the other two Winter 12 factors are satisfied.'" See Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 13 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottress, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). 14 To prevail on a motion for injunctive relief, "there must be a relationship between 15 the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 16 complaint." Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 17 2015). Thus, there must be a nexus between the claims raised in the motion and the claims in the 18 underlying complaint itself. See id. This nexus is satisfied where the preliminary injunction 19 would grant "relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally." See id. (quoting 20 De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). 21 The Court cannot issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the 22 action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 23 Moreover, if an inmate is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the 24 prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is 25 some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 26 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). 27 / / / 28 / / / ] In the pending motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff complains that unnamed 2 || prison officials at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility are soliciting other inmates 3 | to murder him, are interfering with his access to the courts, and are interfering with his mail. See 4 | ECF No. 41. Despite the potential seriousness of these allegations, the Court finds that injunctive 5 || relief is not warranted because there is no nexus between the matters asserted in Plaintiff's motion 6 || and the conduct asserted in the operative amended complaint, which proceeds on Plaintiff's 7 || Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendant Ma and concerms event which occurred 8 | in June 2024 at the Sacramento County Main Jail. 9 Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an extension of time, the docket does not 10 || reflect any deadlines in this case other than the discovery cut-off date of August 21, 2026, and the 11 || dispositive motion filing deadline 120 days thereafter. Plaintiff has not explained why additional 12 || time to comply with these deadlines is needed. 13 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for 14 | injunctive relief and an extension of time, ECF No. 41, be DENIED. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 16 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within 14 days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 18 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 19 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 20 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 | Dated: April 14, 2026 Co 23 DENNIS M. COTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28