(PC) Brown v. Hubbard et al, No. 2:2008cv02286 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/2/09 RECOMMENDING that 25 MOTION Compel, construed as motion for injunctive relief, be denied. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Brown v. Hubbard et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RONNIE BROWN, 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, vs. SUZANN HUBBARD, et al., Defendants. 13 14 No. CIV S-08-2286 FCD GGH P FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / Pending before the court is plaintiff’s September 11, 2009, motion to compel. In 15 this motion, plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants to provide him with an “adequate means 16 of daily living assistance.” In particular, plaintiff requests that, based on his disabilities, upon his 17 release on parole, defendants be ordered to provide him with a care giver, safe housing and 18 financial assistance. On September 16, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address 19 indicating that he is no longer incarcerated. The court construes plaintiff’s motion to compel as 20 a request for injunctive relief. 21 In the operative complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants refused to provide him 22 with adequate assistance for his disabilities while he was housed in state prison. Plaintiff makes 23 no claim regarding defendants’ obligation to assist him upon his release on parole. 24 “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to 25 demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 26 in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978 (9th Cir. 2 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 3 (2008). Moreover, injunctive relief can only be awarded on claims fairly encompassed within the 4 operative complaint. DeBeers etc. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945); cf Johnson v. 5 Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1084 (9th Cir. 2009). 6 Because the claims raised in the pending motion concern matters unrelated to 7 those raised in the complaint, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of 8 success on the merits of this action. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s September 11, 2009, motion to compel (no. 25), construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 13 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 16 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 17 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 18 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 DATED: November 2, 2009 20 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 br2286.inj 25 26 2

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.