THOMAS COFFIN, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff's Motion to access Pacer Court case tracking without fees (#8) is denied.
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Prayer for Relief (#9) is allowed.
Plaintiff has also filed a "Motion for injunction to prevent sale of property." (#10). Plaintiff alleges he has "involuntarily had his personal effects stored after his untimely termination," and "seeks to prevent the sale of the property where his personal effects have been stored since his termination." Plaintiff further alleges that "[s]aid property is the `subport' located at 355 Whittier Street . . . in Juneau Alaska, and is owed by the mental health trust. Plaintiff requests the court to order that this property remain in the hands of the mental health trust and leased by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game until such time as the defendants have remedied the complaints against them and that the personal effects of the plaintiff/petitioner remain there until such time that remedy is negotiated." Motion for Injunction to Prevent Sale of Property (#10).
Injunctive relief is only available if there is a "real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again." City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983).
Plaintiff's "motion for injunction" is most reasonably construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction.
The relevant factors for determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue were canvassed by the Ninth Circuit inUnited States v. Odessa Union Warehouse, 833 F.2d 172, 174 (9th Cir. 1987):
"The factors we traditionally consider in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction in this circuit are (1) the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits; (2) the possibility of plaintiff's suffering irreparable injury if relief is
not granted; (3) the extent to which the balance of hardships favors the respective parties; and (4) in certain cases, whether the public interest will be advanced by the provision of preliminary relief.
Dollar Rent A Car of Washington Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company,
774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9
th Cir. 1985). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in its favor.
Benda v. Grand Lodge of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers,
584 F.2d 308, 314-15 (9
th Cir. 1978),
cert. dismissed,
441 U.S. 937,
99 S.Ct. 2065,
60 L.Ed.2d 667 (1979). These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.
Oakland Tribune Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.,
762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9
th Cir. 1985).
The moving party must show, at an irreducible minimum, that they have a fair chance of success on the merits. Stanley v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d 1313, 1319 (9th Cir. 1994), quoting Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 674-675 (9th Cir. 1994); Committee of Cent. American Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1437 (9th Cir. 1986). This is so because the probability of success on the merits is the critical standard in determining the propriety of preliminary relief. Lancor v. Lebanon Housing Authority, 760 F.2d 361, 362 (1st Cir. 1985).
In this case, plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to relief under either formulation of the standard. Although plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to enable the court to make a determination, it appears that plaintiff's property may be being stored as an accommodation to plaintiff. He has not alleged that defendants have refused to return his property or indicated that they intend to dispose of it. Plaintiff has not suggested any reason why plaintiff could not retrieve such property at any time. Accordingly, he has not established the possibility of irreparable injury.
Nor has plaintiff demonstrated probable success on the merits. Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed for reasons including Eleventh Amendment Immunity. Although the court has not yet parsed the amended "Petition for Writ of Mandamus" it appear to suffer from many of the deficiencies that led to the dismissal of the original complaint. In addition, the disposition of plaintiff's personal property has no apparent relationship to his underlying claim.
Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction (#10) should be denied.