Summary
The document contains findings and recommendations on a state prisoner’s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The magistrate judge recommends denying the motion without prejudice as to alleged unsanitary conditions in a prison dining hall because no named defendant had authority to close or limit its operation, and recommends denying relief concerning alleged retaliation and rules violation reports because those claims involved nonparties and lacked evidentiary support.
Holdings
- The motion should be denied without prejudice because the record did not establish that any named defendant had authority to close or otherwise limit operation of the B dining hall, and the court had not been briefed on whether the warden's successor was legally identified with defendant Covello for purposes of Rule 65(d)(2).
- Plaintiff was not entitled to the requested retaliation-related injunction or expungement because his complaint did not proceed on a retaliation claim, the alleged retaliators were not parties, and his evidence did not show knowledge of the lawsuit, retaliatory motive, or the absence of legitimate correctional reasons for the reports.
- A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm absent relief, that the balance of equities tips in the party's favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff established grounds for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction concerning the B dining hall and kitchen.
- Whether the court could issue effective injunctive relief affecting nonparty prison staff or the warden's successor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2).
- Whether plaintiff established a basis for injunctive relief prohibiting retaliation or expunging rules-violation reports when the alleged retaliators were not parties and the evidence did not show retaliatory motive.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Haw. County Green Party v. Clinton, 980 F. Supp. 1160, 1164 (D. Haw. 1997)(followed)
- Stuhlbarg International Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)(cited)
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)(cited)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)(followed)
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Howard Law, P.C., 671 Fed. Appx. 954, 955 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)(cited)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)(cited)
- Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.