Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA,

Defendant.

 /

CV F 03 5369 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 62.) 

Eric Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 12, 2005, Plaintiff moved for a Preliminary Injunctive to prevent the

Defendant from revoking single cell status. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an

Order restraining Correctional Counselor’s E. Devlin and M. Nipper from supervising Plaintiff’s

case factors at Institutional Classification Committee hearings.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” 

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an

injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a

bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is a transgender and that the California

Department of Corrections regulations regarding classification, housing and yard placement are

unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment because they insufficient to protect him given his

status as a transgender. 

In the Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an

injunction prohibiting the named Defendants from participating on any classification committee

that might revoke his single cell status and also prevent the institution as a whole from revoking

his single cell status. A mandatory preliminary injunction such as that sought by Plaintiff in the

instant motion “is subject to heightened scrutiny and should not be issued unless the facts and the

law clearly favor the moving party.” Dahl v. Hem Pharmaceuticals Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403

(9th Cir. 1993). Here, however, Plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that he has a likelihood of

success on the merits. In addition, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s

believe that he will be subjected to harm should he be removed from his single cell status is

purely speculative. Here, Plaintiff generally avers that his safety will be compromised should his

single cell status be revoked. Speculative injury, however, does not constitute irreparable harm. 

Goldies’ Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of the State of California, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir.

1984). 

 In addition, the court is unable to issue any order against individuals who are not parties

to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

Plaintiff’s motion fails to link any alleged conduct or harm to parties named in this action. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for

Preliminary Injunctive Relief be DENIED.

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3