-GBC (PC) Christ v. Hartley, No. 1:2011cv00705 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 09/02/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 10/6/2011. (Flores, E)

Download PDF

-GBC (PC) Christ v. Hartley Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JON CHRIST, 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 13 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00705-AWI-GBC (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION JAMES HARTLEY, et al., (ECF No. 9) 14 Defendants. / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 16 17 18 19 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Jon Christ (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court. 20 Defendant Hartley then removed it to federal court on April 11, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) It has 21 22 not yet been screened by this Court. 23 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed May 24 12, 2011. (ECF No. 9.) In the Motion, Plaintiff states that, on April 15, 2011, he was 25 informed by prison staff that all electronic appliances were going to be taken away from all 26 inmates. Plaintiff requests that an injunction be issued to stop this from happening. 27 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. 2 3 LEGAL STANDARDS To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 4 5 of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 6 in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) 7 (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). The Ninth 8 Circuit has also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to preliminary injunctions 9 10 as it relates to the showing a plaintiff must make regarding his chances of success on the merits survives Winter and continues to be valid. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 11 12 13 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2010). Under this sliding scale, the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced. As it relates to the merits analysis, a stronger 14 showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing of likelihood of 15 success on the merits. Id. 16 17 In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm 18 19 20 21 the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). III. ANALYSIS 22 In the his Motion, Plaintiff makes allegations that all electronics will soon be 23 removed from the prison. Plaintiff states that the prisoners should be allowed to have fans 24 because the ventilation system is inadequate. He fails to attribute responsibility for this 25 26 action to any named Defendants. 27 2 1 2 3 The Court finds that, at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff fails to meet the legal standards required to be granted injunctive relief. To succeed on such motion, Plaintiff must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer 4 5 6 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Plaintiff has not addressed any of the 7 legal requirements to meet the standard. He does not state anything about the merits of 8 this action, does not refer to any irreparable harm, the balance of equities or the public 9 good. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion 12 13 for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States 15 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 16 636(b)(1). 17 Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document 18 19 20 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 21 to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: 1j0bbc September 2, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 3

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.