Summary
The document is an order directing the clerk to randomly assign a district judge and a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation in Cannavan v. Macomber. The magistrate judge recommends denying the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief concerning alleged interference with access to legal materials and court filings. The recommendation concludes that the action had not yet been screened, no defendants had appeared, and the plaintiff had not shown likely irreparable harm or otherwise satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief.
Holdings
- The court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and other prison staff because the complaint had not been screened, no defendant had been served, and no defendant had appeared; therefore, the court could not order them to take or refrain from taking action.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because he failed to show that irreparable harm was likely absent an injunction, that the balance of equities favored him, or that an injunction was in the public interest.
- A court may not issue injunctive relief based on claims that were not pleaded in the complaint, and relief requires a nexus between the injury identified in the motion and the claims underlying the action.
- Any preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm requiring relief, and use the least intrusive means necessary.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could issue injunctive relief against prison officials before the complaint had been screened, defendants had been served, or any defendant had appeared.
- Whether plaintiff satisfied the federal preliminary-injunction requirements, including likelihood of irreparable harm, favorable balance of hardships, and the public interest.
- Whether the requested relief was sufficiently related to claims pleaded in the complaint and complied with the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (16)
- Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872, 887 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)(followed)
- Barth v. Montejo, 2021 WL 1291962, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2021)(followed)
- Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-24 (2008)(followed)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633, 636 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.