Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05640/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05640-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL P. EVANS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-CV-05640 AWI JMD HC 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On March 05, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for injunctive relief. The Court has reviewed

the motion and finds the motion essentially requests the same relief as the petition. Petitioner is

advised the Magistrate Judge is currently reviewing the pending petition.

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

established. To prevail, 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 (9 Cir.1999); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d th

1374, 1376 (9 Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the th

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 24 Filed 03/12/08 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

cd 2

focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Walczak, 198 F.3d at 731; Oakland

Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. The greater the relative hardship to [a plaintiff], the less probability of

success must be shown. Walczak, 198 F.3d at 731. “Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff

must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Oakland Tribune, 762

F.2d at 1376. In the absence of a significant showing of irreparability, the court need not reach the

issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. Given that the motion for injunctive relief is

duplicative of the petition and the petition will be decided shortly, the court finds that there is little

showing of irreparable injury. As explained by Plaintiff, to avoid any injury, the injunction and

petition needed to have been granted by at least November 2007. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief is

DENIED. The Magistrate Judge will issue Findings and Recommendations on the petition shortly.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 24 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2