Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01893/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01893-4/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

RAYMOND D. JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1893 LKK DAD P

vs.

NADIM K. KHOURY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction.

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

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits

and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of

hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122

F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374,

1376 (9th Cir. 1985). 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

any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

Case 2:06-cv-01893-LKK -DAD Document 26 Filed 06/19/07 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

irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

In his motion plaintiff asserts that over twenty years ago, he received a kidney

transplant. (Mot. at 1.) To keep the kidney functioning, plaintiff must take immuno-suppressing

medications twice a day. Plaintiff alleges that CDCR doctors and the specialist who performed

the kidney transplant made clear that he must take precautions to protect the kidney. In

particular, plaintiff alleges that he should not be exposed to individuals with diseases, or his

system could reject the kidney transplant. (Mot. at 2.)

Plaintiff alleges that defendants are exposing him to unnecessary risks. For

example, plaintiff alleges that he caught a serious cold from his cellmate, who has since moved. 

Plaintiff alleges that within the next day or two another cellmate will move into his cell. Plaintiff

further alleges that, although defendants check incoming inmates for “TB, etc.,” he may not be so

lucky in the days and years to come. One of the incoming inmates could possess a disease that

would cause plaintiff’s system to reject his kidney transplant. (Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that

defendants are not taking reasonable measures to prevent the rejection of his kidney and have

blocked his attempts to secure a single cell. (Mot. at 2 & 4.) Plaintiff concludes that he is in

danger of losing his life-saving kidney transplant and that a preliminary injunction is necessary to

prevent irreversible future harm. (Mot. at 9.) 

The court will recommend denying plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. 

Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v.

Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988); Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739

F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). A presently existing actual threat must be shown, although the

Case 2:06-cv-01893-LKK -DAD Document 26 Filed 06/19/07 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

injury need not be certain to occur. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S.

100, 130-31 (1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523

U.S. 1020 (1998); Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., 844 F.2d at 674. 

Plaintiff has not provided the court with evidence that he faces an injury that is

real and immediate or demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is

not granted. Although plaintiff has expressed concerns about his future cellmate, presently,

plaintiff does not have a cellmate. Plaintiff is only able to speculate about future cellmates and

possible scenarios, which may well not transpire. A speculative injury is not sufficient to justify

a preliminary injunction. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s June 8, 2007

motion for a preliminary injunction be denied without prejudice.

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: June 18, 2007.

DAD:9

jack1893.48

Case 2:06-cv-01893-LKK -DAD Document 26 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 3