Matthews v. United States, 3:16-cv-00077

Plaintiff Felton L. Matthews, Jr., a Nevada state prisoner at Ely State Prison, filed a civil complaint in state court against multiple local, state, and federal actors; the United States and federal agencies removed the case to federal court.
Matthews moved for preliminary/permanent injunctive relief soon after removal and later filed a motion for partial summary judgment; the federal defendants moved to dismiss.
The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation dismissing the Federal Government defendants and, in a separate screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice with leave to amend.
Matthews’ injunctive motion primarily repeated the complaint’s allegations and did not develop legal arguments showing probable success on the merits.
The magistrate judge found Matthews’ summary-judgment motion premature (filed before defendants were served/appeared) and moot because the judicial and quasi-judicial defendants were immune and there were no viable claims pending against them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether preliminary or permanent injunctive relief should issue	Matthews seeks injunctions repeating the complaint’s allegations and requests various relief	Federal Government opposed; dismissal motions argued claims not cognizable	Denied as moot and for failure to show likelihood of success; motion dismissed without prejudice
Whether plaintiff showed likelihood of success on the merits for injunctive relief	Matthews asserts entitlement but offers only conclusory allegations	Defendants relied on briefing and motions to dismiss; court found defect in pleadings	Held that Matthews failed to demonstrate probable success; injunctive motion lacks necessary showing
Whether injunctive relief is justiciable after court’s dismissal/recommendation	Matthews requested relief tied to dismissed claims	Defendants argued motions were mooted by dismissals	Court held motions were moot because dismissal of claims eliminated case-or-controversy
Whether partial summary judgment against judges/clerks is proper	Matthews seeks judgment and injunctive relief against Judge Gary Fairman and court clerks	Defendants and court note judicial/quasi-judicial immunity and lack of service/appearance; premature filing	Denied without prejudice as premature and moot given immunity and dismissal of claims

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary and not awarded as of right)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
Arc of Cal. v. Douglas, 757 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2014) (Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale approach for injunctions)
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions/balance of hardships standard)
De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945) (preliminary relief must be of same character as final relief)
Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015) (injunctive relief must relate to underlying complaint’s conduct)
Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2000) (PLRA limits equitable relief in prison-condition cases)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards)