(PC) Driver v. Gibson et al, No. 2:2020cv00642 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 05/06/21 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief 33 , 37 , 38 be denied. Motions 33 , 37 , 38 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, JR., 12 No. 2:20-CV-0642-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER KEITH GIBSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief. ECF Nos. 33, 37, 38. Plaintiff 19 makes various requests, but the Court construes the motions as motions for injunctive relief. The 20 undersigned United States Magistrate Judge recommends denying each motion. I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 21 22 Plaintiff’s motions are, at their core, duplicative of each other. See ECF Nos. 33, 37, 23 38. Plaintiff variously notes that he is seeking injunctive relief, bail, mental health services, 24 investigation into his unlawful incarceration, and a loan from the Court of $10 million dollars.1 25 ECF Nos. 33 at 1; 37 at 1; 38 at 1. 26 1 27 28 Although Plaintiff requests bail (see, e.g., ECF No. 33 at 1), the Court only addresses injunctive relief generally. Plaintiff’s separate motion for release from prison is also pending before the Court. ECF No. 42. The Court has addressed that motion through separate findings and recommendations. To the extent Plaintiff requests release here, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge recommends that it be denied for the reasoning identified in the separate recommendations. 1 1 Plaintiff makes brief, standalone allegations that prison guards have assaulted him. 2 See, e.g., ECF Nos. 33 at 2–3; 37 at 2–3. He attaches a haphazard compendium of documents to 3 each motion. See ECF Nos. 33, 37, 38. The documents variously include, for example, Plaintiff’s 4 communications with his public defender, letters from private law firms concerning class action 5 lawsuits and Plaintiff’s receipt of mental healthcare, administrative proceedings finding Plaintiff 6 guilty of assaulting a prison guard, and grievances that Plaintiff has filed in prison. See, e.g., ECF 7 Nos. 33 at 4–11, 19–21, 29; 37 at 4–16; 38 at 3–16, 18–19, 22. Other than the amalgam of 8 documents and brief allegations of assault, Plaintiff does not include any substantive argument 9 supporting his motions. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 33 at 1–3, 57; 37 at 1–3; 38 at 1–2, 80–81. 10 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 11 Because the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for injunctive relief, the 12 Court recites the standards governing preliminary injunctions. The primary purpose of a 13 preliminary injunction is preservation of the status quo. See, e.g., Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872, 14 887 (9th Cir. 2020). More specifically, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is preservation the 15 Court's power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See, e.g., Univ. of Texas 16 v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981); Barth v. Montejo, No. 2:19-cv-1874-DB-P, 2021 WL 17 1291962, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2021). It is meant to maintain the relative positions of the parties 18 and prevent irreparable loss of rights before a trial and final judgment. See, e.g., Camenisch, 451 19 U.S. at 395; Ramos, 975 F.3d at 887; Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020). A 20 preliminary injunction may assume two forms. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 21 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2009). Prohibitory injunctions prevent a party from 22 acting, thus maintaining the status quo. Id. A mandatory injunction directs some responsible party 23 to act. Id. at 879. 24 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary 25 restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the moving party must 26 show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 27 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 28 20–22 (2008)); see also All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 2 1 To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing solely on the possibility 2 of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 3 Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); see Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127; 4 Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 5 likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 6 injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 7 interest. E.g., Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. 8 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is not awarded as of right. 9 Winter, 555 U.S. at 24; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. The burden to achieve injunctive relief is 10 particularly high when a party seeks a mandatory injunction. See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 11 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). Mandatory injunctions go beyond an injunction preventing a party from 12 acting, and thus beyond mere maintenance of the status quo. See id. They require a party to act. Id. 13 District courts must deny requests for mandatory injunctions unless the law and facts clearly favor 14 a moving party. Id. The Court will not grant such requests in doubtful cases. Id. 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 The Court need not undertake any lengthy analysis. Plaintiff has not established 17 grounds for any relief, let alone a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motions do not establish that 18 he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, that he faces irreparable harm if this Court does 19 not issue an injunction, that the hardships tip in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public 20 interest. See, e.g., Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. Although the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth 21 Circuit has employed a sliding scale under which a stronger showing as to one of the foregoing 22 elements can make up for a weaker showing on another element, Plaintiff has not made any 23 requisite showing on any element. See id. at 1131–35; Ramos, 975 F.3d at 878–88; ECF Nos. 33, 24 37, 38. There are simply no grounds on which to grant injunctive relief. 25 Even construing Petitioner’s submissions liberally, Petitioner makes no real 26 argument on any of the elements justifying the extraordinary remedy of an injunction. Petitioner’s 27 submissions make no showing satisfying what the Ninth Circuit has determined is the most 28 important factor—likelihood of success on the merits. See Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740. He offers 3 1 nothing but his allegations of assault (which are not supported by any argument) and the mix of 2 documents that he attaches to his motions. See ECF Nos. 33, 37, 38. Moreover, the Court has not 3 yet screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and thus cannot say that 4 Plaintiff has established any particular likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. 5 Furthermore, although the Court need not consider the remaining elements, it is 6 worth noting that Plaintiff’s has not remotely established irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s allegations 7 of abuse at the hands of prison guards—if true—may well constitute a violation of his constitutional 8 rights. See Hudson v, McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 4–10 (1992); Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 9 1140–41 (9th Cir. 2020); Hoard v. Hartman, 904 F.3d 780, 787–88 (9th Cir. 2018). Deprivation of 10 constitutional rights can qualify as irreparable harm. E.g., Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 11 (9th Cir. 2012). But Plaintiff’s unsupported allegations that he has been assaulted, and his attachment 12 of documents mostly irrelevant to that claim, do not establish irreparable harm. Plaintiff must show that 13 irreparable harm is likely, not just possible. Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. He has not done so. 14 15 16 IV. RECOMMENDATION The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 33, 37, 38) be DENIED. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 19 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 20 the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure 21 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 22 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 Dated: May 6, 2021 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
