(PC) Hicks v. Schultz(PC) Hicks v. Schultz
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). When a mandatory injunction is sought – one that goes beyond simply maintaining the status quo during litigation – the moving party bears a “doubly demanding” burden and must establish that the law and facts clearly support injunctive relief. See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Mandatory injunctions are “particularly disfavored” and “should not issue in doubtful cases.” Id. (internal quotations
To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The Ninth Circuit also recognizes an additional standard: “if a plaintiff can only show that there are ‘serious questions going to the merits’ – a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff‘s favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.‘” See Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)).
The Court cannot issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Finally, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, any injunction with respect to prison conditions “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.”
Here, Plaintiff states that he is in danger at Mule Creek State Prison, where he has previously been attacked by other inmates, because his commitment offense has become known. See ECF No. 10. Plaintiff also claims that he is subject to being identified as a snitch and attacked by gang members at Mule Creek State Prison. See id. Plaintiff seeks an order that he be housed separately from gang members. See id.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 10, be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of
Dated: August 4, 2026
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE