Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01917/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01917-4/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

SAM CONSIGLIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1917 DFL GGH P 

vs.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief contained in

his complaint filed October 20, 2005. For the following reasons, the court recommends that

plaintiff’s motion be denied.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants planned to transfer inmates with special needs

from Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) to Folsom Prison in January 2006. Plaintiff alleged that

he was an inmate with special needs and that transferring him to Folsom could jeopardize his

safety. Since filing this motion, plaintiff has been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison

(SVSP).

On December 27, 2005, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. 

Defendants state even if the plan to transfer special needs inmates to Folsom was adopted,

Case 2:05-cv-01917-DFL-GGH Document 17 Filed 01/20/06 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

2

plaintiff was not considered for transfer because Folsom does not have relatively level terrain,

which plaintiff requires based on his medical needs.

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are

well established. “The traditional equitable criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are

(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff

if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4)

advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).” Dollar Rent A Car v. Travelers Indem.

Co., 774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1985). The criteria are traditionally treated as alternative

tests. “Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates

‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.’” Martin

v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting William Inglis &

Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975)). The Ninth

Circuit has reiterated that under either formulation of the principles, if the probability of success

on the merits is low, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied:

Martin explicitly teaches that “[u]nder this last part of the

alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in

favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible

minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits.”

Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Martin, 740 F.2d at 675).

Because plaintiff was not transferred to Folsom and would not have been

transferred there based on his medical needs, the court finds that plaintiff’s probability of success

on the merits of this action is low. On this ground, the court recommends that plaintiff’s motion

for injunctive relief be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief contained in his complaint be denied.

Case 2:05-cv-01917-DFL-GGH Document 17 Filed 01/20/06 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

3

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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 1/20/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

con1917.pi

Case 2:05-cv-01917-DFL-GGH Document 17 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 3