(PC) Reynolds v. Gerstel et al, No. 1:2009cv00680 - Document 70 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 61 63 Motions for Injunctive Relief be Denied; Objections Due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/13/2011. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 11/15/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

(PC) Reynolds v. Gerstel et al Doc. 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FERDINAND REYNOLDS, 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (Docs. 61, 63) Defendants. 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00680-AWI-GBC (PC) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS v. K. GERSTEL, et al., 13 14 / 15 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 16 I. Procedural History 17 Plaintiff Ferdinand Reynolds (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 16, 2009. (Doc. 1). 19 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s original complaint filed on April 16, 2009, against Defendant 20 Gerstel for conduct regarding a tooth extraction on August 18, 2008, in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment. (Docs. 24, 25, 36). On August 9, 2011, and August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed motions 22 for injunctive relief to order various prison officials from engaging in various acts of retaliation as 23 a result of this pending action. (Docs. 61, 63). 24 25 II. 26 Injunctive Relief “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 27 right.” 28 (2008)(citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 2 of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 3 in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded 4 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 5 omitted)(emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[T]o the extent that our 6 cases have suggested a lesser standard, they are no longer controlling, or even viable.” 7 McDermott v. Ampersand Pub., LLC, 593 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2010), quoting Am. Trucking 8 Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The moving party 9 has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Environmental Council of Sacramento 10 Id. at 376 (citation v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 11 ‘A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties 12 and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 13 persons not before the court.’ Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 14 (quoting Zepeda v. U.S. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). The claims in this action arise 15 from Plaintiff’s tooth extraction and Plaintiff’s new retaliation claims do not involve the same 16 individuals or claim, thus the Court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief. 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 3 Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed August 10, 2011 and August 15, 2011, be DENIED, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. 4 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 0jh02o 14 October 13, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.