Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00191/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00191-12/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Clarence Howard, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

C/O J. Nunley, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.CIV 06-0191-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (doc. # 26),

which the Court denies. 

“A temporary restraining order is designed to preserve the status quo until there is an

opportunity to hold a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction.” Whitman v.

Hawaiian Tug & Barge Corporation/Young Bros. Ltd. Salaried Pension Plan, 27 F. Supp.

2d 1225, 1228 (D. Haw. 1998). “The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is

identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Id. To obtain a preliminary

injunction, the moving party must show 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 its favor.” Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc.,

198 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999). These are not two separate tests; they represent “extremes

of a singular continuum.” Id. 

Plaintiff requests an injunction to prevent Defendants from (1) using unlawful

excessive force against him; (2) unlawfully spraying him with pepper spray; (3) falsely

Case 1:06-cv-00191-NVW Document 49 Filed 01/12/10 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 -

imprisoning him within the administrative segregation unit without cause; and (4) offering

false documentary evidence against him. Plaintiff further requests that Defendants be

ordered to transfer him to a new prison, and that Defendants be ordered to stay five-hundred

feet away from him. However, Plaintiff’s request for immediate injunctive relief is not

adequately supported. A presently existing actual threat must be shown, although the injury

need not be certain to occur. See FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1280 (9th Cir. 1997).

“Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a

preliminary injunction. A plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent harm

sufficient to establish standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as

a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige,

844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). While Plaintiff

has, for example, alleged that Defendants unlawfully sprayed him with pepper spray without

provocation on February, 5, 2009, Plaintiff has made no showing that there is an immediate

threat that Plaintiff will be again subjected to similar conduct in the future. The same is true

of Plaintiff’s other claims. 

Plaintiff also requests a preliminary injunction requiring prison officials to return all

of Plaintiff’s personal property that was taken by them. However, Plaintiff does not allege

in his motion that Defendants have unlawfully deprived him of his personal property. 

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits or the possibility

of irreparable injury. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order (doc. # 26) is denied.

DATED this 12th day of January, 2010. 

Case 1:06-cv-00191-NVW Document 49 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 2