(PS) Wenzler v. Hamim et al, No. 2:2024cv02074 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2024)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/29/24 RECOMMENDING that the 11 Motion for Injunctive Relief be denied. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections due within 14 days of service of these findings and recommendations. (Licea Chavez, V)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIZABETH ROSE WENZLER, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-02074-DAD-JDP (PS) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED v. MALIK HAMIM, et al., ECF No. 11 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 Plaintiff has filed a motion for injunctive relief. The motion centers around a list of 19 apparent grievances, bearing little obvious connection to each other. See ECF No. 11. For 20 example, plaintiff states that an unidentified person egged her car and stole her hubcaps, that she 21 suffered an injury to her spine and ankle from a car accident in October 2020, that an unidentified 22 woman came to her home looking for a cat, and that the children bounced balls in front of her 23 home. Id. at 1-2. The remainder of the motion consists of blurry, black and white photographs, 24 which appear to be pictures of an ankle, automobiles, and people on streets, as well as the door of 25 car. Id. at 3-12. 26 To obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff must show (1) likelihood of success on the merits; 27 (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of 28 equities tips in [her] favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. 1 1 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “The first factor under Winter is the most important— 2 likely success on the merits.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). 3 Here, as indicated in my August 26, 2024 order, plaintiff has failed to state a claim—and 4 so she is not likely to succeed on the merits. She further makes no argument that absent 5 injunctive relief she will suffer irreparable harm; she fails to address any other prong of the test 6 for injunctive relief. As plaintiff has not shown irreparable harm, that the balance of equities 7 weighs in her favor, or that an injunction would serve the public interest in this case, I 8 recommend that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, 9 10 ECF No. 11, be denied. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 13 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 14 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 15 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 16 within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 17 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 18 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 19 1991). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: August 29, 2024 23 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 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.
