Thomas Allen Davies v. Reynoso, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS ALLEN DAVIES, No. 2:24-CV-0485-DC-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 REYNOSO, et al., 15 Defendants. 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 entitled “Motion to Request 19 Emergency Processing of Above Case and Protection from CDCR Employees, Removal from 20 CDCR.” See ECF No. 24. 21 In his two-page motion, Plaintiff claims that unnamed prison officials are exposing 22 him to toxic fumes and placing chemicals in his food. See id. It is unclear what relief Plaintiff 23 seeks. 24 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 25 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 26 moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See 27 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 28 Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). When a mandatory injunction is sought – one that goes 1 beyond simply maintaining the status quo during litigation – the moving party bears a "doubly 2 demanding" burden and must establish that the law and facts clearly supports injunctive relief. 3 See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Mandatory injunctions 4 are "particularly disfavored" and "should not issue in doubtful cases." Id. (internal quotations 5 omitted). 6 To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing solely 7 on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even viable.” 8 Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under 9 Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; 10 (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance of 11 hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d 12 at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The Ninth Circuit also recognizes an additional 13 standard: "if a plaintiff can only show that there are 'serious questions going to the merits' – a 14 lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a preliminary injunction may still 15 issue if the 'balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, and the other two Winter 16 factors are satisfied.'" See Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 17 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottress, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). 18 To prevail on a motion for injunctive relief, "there must be a relationship between 19 the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 20 complaint." Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 21 2015). Thus, there must be a nexus between the claims raised in the motion and the claims in the 22 underlying complaint itself. See id. This nexus is satisfied where the preliminary injunction 23 would grant "relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally." See id. (quoting 24 De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). 25 The Court cannot issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the 26 action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 27 Moreover, if an inmate is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the 28 prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is 1 | some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 2 | 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Finally, 3 || pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, any injunction with respect to prison conditions 4 | "must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds 5 || requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm." 18 6 || U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see also Wonnacott v. Heehn, 2021 WL 970453 (D. Oregon 2021). 7 To the extent Plaintiff seeks some form of injunctive relief, the Court finds that 8 | such relief is not available. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief directed to unnamed prison officials. 9 || According to Plaintiff, as outlined in the operative second amended complaint, the defendants in 10 || this case are prison officials at Mule Creek State Prison, the California Health Care Facility, 11 || and/or the R.J. Donovan Correctional Center.! Plaintiff has not identified any currently named 12 || defendant in the pending motion. As explained above, the Court cannot issue injunctive relief 13 || directed to non-parties 14 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion, ECF 15 || No. 24, be denied. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 17 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 18 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 19 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 20 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 21 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 | Dated: March 4, 2026 Co 24 DENNIS M. COTA 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 Q_—_ xo da Plaintiff's misjoinder of disparate claims arising at different institutions will be 28 | addressed by separate order.