Cox

(PC) Bland v. Cox

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 20252:20-cv-00715California973 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA BLAND, No. 2:20-CV-0715-WBS-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DEREK COX, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief. See ECF 19 Nos. 46 and 47. 20 The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 21 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 22 moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See 23 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 24 Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). When a mandatory injunction is sought – one that goes 25 beyond simply maintaining the status quo during litigation – the moving party bears a "doubly 26 demanding" burden and must establish that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.