(PC) West v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al, No. 1:2009cv01277 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending Denial of 32 Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 6/24/2011. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 7/28/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) West v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 GERALD A. WEST, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01277-GBC (PC) 9 Plaintiff, 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. 11 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., 12 13 (ECF No. 32) Defendants. 14 15 / 16 Plaintiff Gerald A. West (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Third Amended 18 Complaint, filed August 27, 2010, against Defendants Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 for failure 19 to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 25.) 20 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief on March 24, 2011. (ECF No. 32.) In it, 21 Plaintiff details the facts of this action, subsequent altercations, retaliation, and due 22 process violations, among other things. 23 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 24 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation 25 omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 26 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 27 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon 2 a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis 3 added). 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for 5 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary 6 matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 7 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 8 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 9 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of 10 injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s 11 case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the 12 burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 13 103-04 (1998). 14 The standard for a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary 15 injunction, with the exception that the plaintiff must show actual success, rather than a 16 likelihood of success. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 17 12 (1987). However, the Ninth Circuit has recently revived the “serious questions” sliding 18 scale test, and ruled that a preliminary injunction may be appropriate when a plaintiff 19 demonstrates serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips 20 sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 21 (9th Cir. 2010). 22 In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison 23 Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires that any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly 24 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires 25 preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 26 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Moreover, where, as here, “a plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary 27 injunction that goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should be 28 extremely cautious’ about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief -2- 1 unless the facts and law clearly favor the plaintiff.” Committee of Central American 2 Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Martin v. International 3 Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)). 4 Plaintiff fails to meet the all of the legal standards required to be granted an 5 injunction. To succeed on a motion for such relief, Plaintiff must establish that he is likely 6 to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 7 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 8 the public interest. Plaintiff states that the threatened injury outweighs any damage the 9 injunction might cause; the public interest is best served by issuing the injunction; and that 10 there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff’s case. 11 The Motion appears to be describing different causes of action in different 12 institutions not being dealt with here. Plaintiff appears to be seeking a transfer out of his 13 current institution, which is not the same institution where the claims found to be 14 cognizable occurred. The relief sought by Plaintiff in the instant motion is not related to the 15 controversy before the Court. Any orders relating to a transfer from Plaintiff’s current 16 institution (USP-Lewisburg) would not remedy Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims that 17 occurred at USP-Atwater. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought 18 by Plaintiff. 19 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be 20 DENIED. 21 // 22 /// 23 / 24 // 25 / 26 / 27 // 28 / -3- 1 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3 Within thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the 4 Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Any such document should be captioned 5 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that 6 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 7 Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: 1j0bbc June 24, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
