Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086-14/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00086-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION/TRO

BE DENIED

(Doc. 34)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 9, 2007, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order mandating that prison officials

place him back on single cell status.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1)

a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air

Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 79 Filed 10/05/07 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

27

28

2

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold

requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.”

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983) (citations omitted);

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). “Abstract injury is not enough.”

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 1665. “[P]laintiff must show that he has sustained or is

immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct

and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The key issue is whether the plaintiff is ‘likely to

suffer future injury.’” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126 (quoting Lyons at 105, 1667). When a government

agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal

affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state agency is involved, these considerations

are, in anything, strengthened because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128. “[A]ny

injunctive relief awarded must avoid unnecessary disruption to the state agency’s ‘normal course of

proceeding.’” Id. at 1128 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 669, 679

(1974)). 

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

Equitable remedies are “unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement

that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will

be wronged again - a ‘likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.’” Lyons at 111,

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 79 Filed 10/05/07 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

27

28

 Given that plaintiff filed this action on January 21, 2005, and is required to exhaust claims prior to filing 1

suit, any claims based on retaliation for filing this lawsuit or for failure to protect plaintiff by retaining him on single

cell status would have to be raised in a new action once the claims have been exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

3

1670 (quoting O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 502, 94 S.Ct. at 679). “[A] preliminary injunction is an

extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear

showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 

Plaintiff alleges in his motion that in retaliation for pursuing this lawsuit, he has been

removed from single cell status and in now being double celled with general population prisoners

in the Security Housing Unit at California State Prison-Corcoran. This action was filed on January

21, 2005, and plaintiff’s claims arise from events which occurred prior to that date. This action does

not involve a claim of deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff based on

plaintiff’s recent removal from single cell status. As a result, the court does not have jurisdiction 1

in this action to issue the order sought by plaintiff, assuming plaintiff is even entitled to the issuance

of such an order. 

Because the claims in this action arise from the past conduct of defendants, the pendency of

this action does not confer upon the court a jurisdictional basis upon which to issue any orders

directing at remedying plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement. Accordingly, the court

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed August 9,

2007, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

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 

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 79 Filed 10/05/07 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

27

28

4

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 4, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 79 Filed 10/05/07 Page 4 of 4