Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director

l 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS, Case No. 5:19-cv-01015-R (MAA) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 3 v INJUNCTION NT || BOP DIRECTOR et al., 15 Defendants.

18 On May 2, 2019, Plaintiff Nigel Nicholas Douglas (“Plaintiff”), a federal || prisoner currently incarcerated at the Pulaski County Detention Center in Ullin, || Illinios, filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants BOP Director, Unit Counselor || Villanueva, Unit Officer Melix, Property Officer Cardenas, Officer Zumkher, R&D || Staff Gonzales, Rec. Officer Joseph, and Unknown Others (collectively, || “Defendants”) wrongfully converted Plaintiff's property—mainly original artwork || created by Plaintiff and art supplies—when Plaintiff was placed in a solitary || housing unit (“SHU”) and transferred. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts || claims for conversion, trespass to chattel, unjust enrichment, theft, conspiracy, || replevin, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act || (“RICO”). (Ud. at 12-15.)

1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’'s Motion for Permanent Injunction, which || Plaintiff filed on May 16, 2019. (“Motion,” ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff requests an || injunction ending Defendants’ alleged predatory practice of acquiring inmate || property when inmates are placed in SHU or transferred, and an inventory and || return of Plaintiff's property. (Ud. at'2-3.)

6 “The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of || equitable discretion by the district court ....” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, | 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). “To be entitled to a permanent injunction, a plaintiff |} must demonstrate: (1) actual success on the merits; (2) that it has suffered an || irreparable injury; (3) that remedies available at law are inadequate; (3) that the || balance of hardships justify a remedy in equity; and (4) that the public interest || would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Indep. Training & || Apprenticeship Program v. Cal. Dep’t of Indus. Rels., 730 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th || Cir. 2013); see also Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 || (1987) (“The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a || permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of || success on the merits rather than actual success.”).

18 Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated actual—or even likely—success on the || merits, that he has suffered an irreparable injury, that remedies at law are || inadequate, that the balance of hardships justify a remedy in equity, or that the || public interest would be served by a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the || Motion is DENIED.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 || DATED: September 30, 2019 _@ Q I Rarrincas GARY R. KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE || Presented by: || MARIA A-AUDERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE