Boutros v. Tan

Full title: GEORGE BOUTROS, Plaintiff, v. JANSEN TAN, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 5, 2013

2:13-cv-1306-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2013)

Opinion

GEORGE BOUTROS, Plaintiff, v. JANSEN TAN, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-1306-MCE-CMK United States District Court, E.D. California. September 5, 2013

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for immediate injunction (Doc. 37).

         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)). 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).

         Here, plaintiff has filed a request for injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. Plaintiff is requesting this court issue an order to somehow stop State Court proceedings in a case plaintiff filed against a senior housing complex, Pioneer Towers. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). The request must, therefore, be denied.

         Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion for immediate injunction (Doc. 37) be denied.

         These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).