Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00927/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00927-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YACUB AVICENNA MCLENDON,

Petitioner,

v.

TIM VIRGA,

Respondent.

1:12-cv-00927 LJO MJS HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[Doc. 30]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 7, 2012. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) On June 26, 2013, this Court dismissed the petition as untimely. (ECF 

No. 24.) Petitioner appealed the decision, and on April 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals denied the request for a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 29.) 

On October 16, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for injunctive relief requesting his 

release from custody. (ECF No. 30.)

Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a 

preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. The Court can issue a temporary 

Case 1:12-cv-00927-LJO-MJS Document 31 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

restraining order if the moving party has shown either "(1) a likelihood of success on the 

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions 

going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor."

Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th 

Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 

523 (9th Cir. 1984). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with 

the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d 

at 1376. "Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists 

a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a significant showing of 

irreparable injury, the Court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the 

merits. Id.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate either 1) a 

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or 

2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of 

hardships tips sharply in its favor. First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 

1381 (9th Cir.1987.)

The Court has already dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Ninth Circuit 

has not permitted review of it. Accordingly, Petitioner is not capable of showing that he 

will be successful on the merits of the petition. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden 

demonstrating entitlement to injunctive relief. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for 

injunctive relief is DENIED. (Doc. 30.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00927-LJO-MJS Document 31 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2