# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382933

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony J. Davis v. Tuolumne County, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 13, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382933

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANTHONY J. DAVIS, No. 1:25-cv-00925-JLT-SAB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
13 v. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE
DENIED
14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al.,
(ECF No. 38)
15 Defendants.

16
17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42
18 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed May 11,
20 12, 2026. (ECF No. 38.)
21 I.
22 LEGAL STANDARD
23 The primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is preservation of the status quo. See,
24 e.g., Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872, 887 (9th Cir. 2020). More specifically, the purpose of a
25 preliminary injunction is preservation of the Court’s power to render a meaningful decision after
26 a trial on the merits. See Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981); Barth v.
27 Montejo, 2021 WL 1291962, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2021). It is meant to maintain the relative
28
1 positions of the parties and prevent irreparable loss of rights before a trial and final judgment.
2 See, e.g., Camenisch, 451 U.S. at 395; Ramos, 975 F.3d at 887; Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050,
3 1068 (9th Cir. 2020).
4 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary
5 restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the moving party
6 must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See Stormans, Inc. v.
7 Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
8 555 U.S. 7, 20–22 (2008)); see also All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131
9 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing
10 solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even
11 viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009);
12 Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to succeed on the
13 merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance
14 of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See, e.g., Winter, 555
15 U.S. at 20; Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131.
16 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is not awarded as of right.
17 Winter, 555 U.S. at 24; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. The burden to achieve injunctive relief is
18 particularly high when a party seeks a mandatory injunction. See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d
19 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). Mandatory injunctions go beyond an injunction preventing a party from
20 acting, and thus beyond mere maintenance of the status quo. Id. They require a party to act. Id.
21 District courts must deny requests for mandatory injunctions unless the law and facts clearly
22 favor a moving party. Id. The Court will not grant such requests in doubtful cases. Id.
23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and restraining orders, and
24 requires that a motion include “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly
25 show that immediate, and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
26 adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as well as written certification from the movant's
27 attorney stating “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.”
28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Further, the injunctive relief an applicant requests must relate to the claims
1 brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631,
2 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the
3 complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Absent a nexus between
4 the injury claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the court lacks the authority to
5 grant Plaintiff any relief. Id. at 636.
6 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner
7 litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases,
8 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to
9 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means
10 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Villery v. California Dep’t of Corr., 2016
11 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the PLRA places
12 significant limits upon a court's power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, and
13 “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the
14 bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that
15 binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of
16 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). The court’s jurisdiction is “limited
17 to the parties in this action” and the pendency of an action “does not give the Court jurisdiction
18 over prison officials in general or over the conditions of an inmate’s confinement unrelated to the
19 claims before it.” Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020); Zepeda v.
20 U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).
21 II.
22 DISCUSSION
23 This action is proceeding against Defendant Hurtado for retaliation in violation of the First
24 Amendment.
25 In his present motion, Plaintiff seeks an order that Defendant Hurtado provide mental
26 health care by a qualified specialist, stop acts intended to interfere with his ability to litigate, and
27 stop interference with his request for religious practice accommodation requests. (ECF No. 38 at
28 2-3.)
] The requested preliminary injunction is not related to Plaintiff's retaliation claim upon
2 | which this case proceeds. Therefore, the Court lacks the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to
3 || issue the requested preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th
4 | Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“[A] party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily
5 | establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted
6 | in the complaint.”); Adams v. Castillo, 2022 WL 18779756, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2022)
7 | (complaint alleging interference with prisoner-plaintiffs mail was unrelated to requested
8 | preliminary injunction regarding access to medical care and telephone privileges). Further,
9 | Plaintiff's motion makes no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an
10 | injunction, that the balances of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public
11 | interest.
12 HI.
13 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
14 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a
15 | preliminary injunction, filed on May 11, 2026, (ECF No. 38), be DENIED.
16 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
17 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)
18 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
19 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
20 | Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
21 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
22 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
23
24 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le
25 | Dated: _ May 13, 2026
STANLEY A. BOONE
26 United States Magistrate Judge
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382933. Public record. Not legal advice.