1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUELINE COLEMAN, No. 2:24-cv-02248 DAD AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 XIAOYAN FANG and YE FANG, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On August 19, 2024, 19 on the same day she filed her complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. ECF No. 3. 20 The only information on the motion for an injunction is “SEE VAWA COMPLAINT ATTCHED 21 HERETO AS COMPLAINT.” The complaint alleges housing discrimination related to a unit that 22 plaintiff vacated in July of 2021. ECF No. 1 at 7-9. Attached to the complaint is a copy of a 23 restraining order issued in 2023 against plaintiff’s ex-husband. ECF No. 1 at 13-19. 24 “A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’ ... never awarded as of 25 right.” Munaf v. Geren,

(2008) (internal citations omitted). “A plaintiff 26 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 27 is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 28 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Assn, Inc. v. City 1 || of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 2 | Council, Inc.,

(2008)). “These two formulations represent two points on a sliding 3 || scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success 4 | decreases.” Oakland Trib., Inc. v. Chron. Pub. Co.,

, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985) “Under 5 || any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of 6 || irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the 7 || court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. 8 Here, plaintiff has not articulated any legal or factual basis for a preliminary injunction 9 || and, importantly, she has not shown a possibility of irreparable harm. According to the 10 | complaint, plaintiff has not been living in the defendants’ unit for more than three years. To the 11 | extent plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction against her ex-husband, the court cannot 12 || do so because her ex-husband is not a defendant in this case. The restraining order attached to the 13 || complaint is unrelated to the substance of plaintiffs only legal claim (a Fair Housing Act 14 | violation) against the only defendants in this case, her former landlords. There is no basis for a 15 | preliminary injunction and the motion should be denied. 16 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 17 | (ECF No. 3) be DENIED. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one 20 || (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 21 || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 22 | Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 23 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 24 | Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 25 || DATED: October 17, 2024 ~ 26 Hhthtin— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28