Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01548/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01548-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN KELLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1548 RRB EFB P

vs.

B. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the July 23, 2003, complaint in which plaintiff claims

that defendants Brett Williams and Debrina Williams were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs, i.e., a heart condition. On June 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary

restraining order and a preliminary injunction. He requests an order directing that he not be

transferred away from Mule Creek State Prison, where he was, and still is, confined. For the

reasons explained below, the court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

A temporary restraining order is available to an applicant for a preliminary injunction

when the applicant may suffer irreparable injury before the court can hear the application for a

preliminary injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (motion for preliminary injunction shall be set for

hearing at earliest possible time after entry of temporary restraining order); Granny Goose

Case 2:03-cv-01548-RRB-EFB Document 46 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County,

415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (temporary restraining order issued in state court expired ten days after

action was removed to federal court); Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & 

Procedure, § 2951 (2d ed. 1995). Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the

same general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor

Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.

v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting);

Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).

A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary because threatened injury would

impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. 

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 

F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a very far reaching

power never to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter,

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). The Ninth Circuit standards for preliminary injunctive

relief are well established:

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve rights

pending resolution of the merits of the case by the trial.” Big

Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 868 F.2d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir.

1989). A preliminary injunction is appropriate “where plaintiffs

demonstrate either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and

the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips

sharply in their favor.” Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v.

Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) Shelley, 344

F.3d at 917 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The

irreducible minimum is that the moving party demonstrate a fair

chance of success on the merits or questions serious enough to

require litigation. No chance of success at all will not suffice.” 

Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753

(9th Cir. 1982) (internal punctuation and citations omitted).

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A. , 446 F.3d 984, 990 (9th Cir. 2006). If the balance

of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a

likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly. Benda v. Grand

Case 2:03-cv-01548-RRB-EFB Document 46 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Lodge of the International Association of Machinists, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1978). The

threatened injury must be immediate. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. National

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). And since the remedy is equitable in

nature, there must be no adequate remedy at law. Stanley v. University of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313,

1320 (9th Cir. 1994). If the relief sought is mandatory rather than prohibitory, the balance must

more clearly favor the applicant. Dahl v. HEM Pharm. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993).

As stated above, plaintiff seeks an order enjoining his transfer out of Mule Creek State

Prison. In the motion, he alleges that on June 18, 2007, his prison counselor informed him that

he was being considered for a transfer to a different prison. He asserts that transfer would

interfere with his ability to litigate this matter because the prisoner who assists him also is

confined in Mule Creek State Prison. If he were transferred, there would be substantial delay in

plaintiff’s ability to consult with his assistant. The court notes that plaintiff filed the motion in

June of 2007and he remains confined at Mule Creek State Prison. It therefore does not appear

that transfer was imminent at the time he filed the motion. Furthermore, although plaintiff is

entitled to access to legal materials and resources, Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996);

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977), he is not entitled to the assistance of any other

particular prisoner. Thus, even if his transfer were imminent, the court cannot find that the

balance of hardships tips in his favor absent a showing that the transfer would result in the denial

of plaintiff’s rights as outlined in Lewis and Bounds. Plaintiff has made no such showing. 

Finally, plaintiff has not demonstrated any likelihood that he will succeed on the merits. 

There are alternative grounds for denying this motion. First, plaintiff has failed to

identify who has proposed his transfer. Thus, the court has no person to whom it could direct an

injunctive order. Second, only parties or non-parties with notice who are shown to be in active

concert or participation with defendants may be enjoined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

65. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Plaintiff does not

allege that either defendant has caused plaintiff’s transfer to be imminent. Nor has he

Case 2:03-cv-01548-RRB-EFB Document 46 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

demonstrated that a particular individual has acted in active concert or participation with either

or both of them to cause such transfer. 

For these reasons, the court concludes that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that plaintiff’s June 29, 2007, motion for a

temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with 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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 3, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-01548-RRB-EFB Document 46 Filed 12/04/07 Page 4 of 4