Opinion
2:22-cv-0147-BHS-TLF
05-09-2022
HAEDYN-KHRIS RAQUEL BEAUMANN, Plaintiff, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES INC, Defendant.
Noted for May 27, 2022
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Dkt. 6. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the Court deny plaintiff's motion. Dkt. 6.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendant has violated her First Amendment, Due Process and Equal Protection rights by denying her family access to visit plaintiff by video. Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff alleges that her friends and family residing in Canada wish to visit plaintiff virtually via video. Dkt. 1-1 at 5. Plaintiff contends that defendant -- the alleged vendor contracted by the Department of Corrections to manage video conferencing - will not allow plaintiff's friends and family to create an account necessary to conduct a video visit because they do not have an address in the United States. Dkt. 1-1 at 5. The complaint contends that defendant requires an address in the United States to set up an account for video visits. Dkt. 1-1 at 5. The complaint alleges that by “effectively banning Canadian visitors” defendant is violating plaintiff's Constitutionally protected rights. Dkt. 1-1 at 5-9. Plaintiff's complaint requests declaratory relief, monetary damages and injunctive relief ordering defendant to allow people with Canadian residences to set up video visit accounts. Dkt. 1-1 at 9.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order requesting that the Court direct defendants to allow people living outside of the United States to create video visitation accounts and enjoin the defendant from denying video visitation access to plaintiff based on the visitor's country of residence. Dkt. 6
DISCUSSION
Injunctions are “to be used sparingly, and only in a clear and plain case.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976) (quoting Irwin v. Dixon, 50 U.S. 10, 33 (1850)); see also Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 83 (1974). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Instead, injunctive relief “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate that: (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The moving party must make a showing on all four factors to obtain a preliminary injunction. A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v. Becerra, 901 F.3d 1166, 1167 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing to Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)).
Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard as preliminary injunctions. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001).
Alternatively, in the Ninth Circuit, “a plaintiff may also obtain a preliminary injunction by showing ‘serious questions go[] to the merits' of its claims and a balance of the hardships that tip “sharply” towards the plaintiff, so long as it makes a showing on the other two factors.” A Woman's Friend, 901 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1135). However, a plaintiff may not obtain an injunction merely because an irreparable injury is possible, the plaintiff must show that the irreparable injury is likely absent preliminary relief. Am. Trucking Association, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief. Plaintiff has not established a serious question on the merits, or that the balance of hardships tip toward her position. Additionally, plaintiff has not shown that she will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary relief. Plaintiff alleges that absent injunctive relief defendant will continue to deny plaintiff access to visits from her friends and family. Prison inmates do not have a right to unfettered visitation. Ky. Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996). Similarly, “the Constitution does not require that detainees be allowed contact visits when responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound discretion, that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility.” Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 589 (1984). Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown that she will be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court should DENY plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Dkt. 6.
Plaintiff has fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FRCP 6; FRCP 72(b)(2). Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating this time limitation, this matter shall be set for consideration on May 27, 2022, as noted in the caption.