(PC) David Florence v. Kernan et al, No. 1:2018cv01045 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 09/11/2018. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 10/9/2018. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID FLORENCE, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. S. KERNAN, et al., Defendants. No. 1:18-cv-01045-AWI-JLT (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 10) 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On August 23, 2018, filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary 18 injunction. (Doc. 10.) “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is 19 likely to succeed on the merits and to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 20 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 21 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). “A 22 preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of right. In each 23 case, courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each 24 party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief. In exercising their sound discretion, 25 courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the 26 extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Id., at 24 (citations and quotations omitted). An injunction 27 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Id., at 22. 28 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the 1 1 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly 2 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the 3 least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” As an initial matter, 4 the Court is unable to discern what relief Plaintiff is requesting. While the Court assumes that 5 Plaintiff seeks an order preventing his transfer to an intermingled yard of GP and SNY inmates, 6 he makes no specific statement as to the relief he seeks -- which clearly does not meet the 7 requirements of § 3626. 8 9 Further, “[a]n inmate seeking an injunction on the ground that there is a contemporary violation of a nature likely to continue, must adequately plead such a violation; . . . .” Farmer v. 10 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845-46 (1994) (citations and quotations omitted). It is subsequent to 11 screening, such as in efforts to survive summary judgment, that a plaintiff “must come forward 12 with evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant-officials were at the time suit was 13 filed, and are at the time of summary judgment, knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an 14 objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that they will continue to do so; and finally to establish 15 eligibility for an injunction, the inmate must demonstrate the continuance of that disregard during 16 the remainder of the litigation and into the future.” Id., at 845-46. However, at the pleading 17 stage, the Court is not in a position to determine questions of a claim’s merits which require 18 submission of evidence as opposed to merely determining whether a claim has been stated. 19 Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2008). 20 The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and found it was deficient and 21 granted him leave to file a second amended complaint. At this point, the Court has not 22 determined whether Plaintiff will be able to state any cognizable claims, let alone whether he is 23 entitled to relief. However, even after Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, assuming that 24 he will state at least one cognizable claim, his request for a temporary restraining order/injunctive 25 relief cannot be adequately addressed until evidence is submitted. Thus, his request must be 26 denied without prejudice. 27 28 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive relief, filed on August 23, 2018, be denied for lack of jurisdiction. 2 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 3 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to 5 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 7 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 11, 2018 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 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.
