Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01628-8/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

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1628 FCD EFB P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the 

August 14, 2006, amended complaint, he alleges that: (1) defendant Mcquire refused to take

plaintiff to a medical appointment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) defendant Briddle

changed a disciplinary charge of refusal to obey an order to assault in retaliation for plaintiff’s

filing grievances; (3) defendant Dr. Dickerson refused to permit plaintiff to use a wrist brace,

thereby enabling guards to place handcuffs on plaintiff’s injured left wrist in a manner that

caused pain; (4) defendants Officers Hibbitte and Barron confiscated plaintiff’s medical aids

based on an medical report they knew to be fraudulent; (5) defendant Mcquire repeatedly

interfered with plaintiff’s medical care by completing paperwork stating plaintiff refused medical

care when plaintiff in fact did not; (6) Dr. Roche misrepresented the connection between

Hepatitis C and fatigue, resulting in plaintiff’s placement in a work program beyond his

Case 2:05-cv-01628-FCD-EFB Document 45 Filed 07/17/07 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

1

 Plaintiff alleges he was denied adequate access to the law library on other occasions

related to other cases. The court does not consider those allegations because the court cannot

make any orders with respect to them.

2

capabilities; (7) for three years, Dr. James treated plaintiff with Tylenol for gout; and (8) Dr.

Mangis interfered with plaintiff’s medical treatment by falsely noting in plaintiff’s medical

records that plaintiff did not have hemorrhoids. On September 6, 2006, the court gave plaintiff

30 days to submit papers, including sufficient copies of the second amended complaint, to effect

service of process on defendants. On October 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary

restraining order and a preliminary injunction. In it, he asserts that the law librarian refused to

provide plaintiff with copies of the notice of appeal and request for permission to appeal filed in

this case on November 15, 2006.1

 He also asserts that the law librarian refused to provide him

with copies of the complaint for service of process. In particular, he asserts that the law librarian

would not give plaintiff priority access to the law library unless he gave her the papers he

intended to file so that she could verify he had a filing date. He also asserts that the law librarian

requested that the law librarian refused to make sufficient copies of his second amended

complaint for service of process unless he gave her the document so that she could send a copy

to her supervisor. Plaintiff, however, refused on the ground that his second-amended complaint

was a “confidential legal filing.” Mot. for TRO, filed October 12, 2006, at 16. 

A temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is an extraordinary and drastic remedy to be

granted as an exception rather than as the rule. Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 22,

28 (C.D. Cal. 1977). The issuance of a TRO is the exercise of a very far reaching power which

should never be indulged except where clearly warranted. Tymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapeprinter

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964), cited in Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 24, 33 (9th Cir.

1970). Apart from showing the necessity for immediate relief, applicants for a TRO must meet

the same standards as for a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Hunt v. National Broadcasting Co.,

Inc., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir. 1989); Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Case 2:05-cv-01628-FCD-EFB Document 45 Filed 07/17/07 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

3

 The preliminary injunction standard is well established in this circuit. To prevail upon an

application for a prohibitory preliminary injunction, plaintiff must demonstrate either probable

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or serious questions regarding the

merits of his claims and a balance of hardships tipping sharply in his favor. Miss Universe, Inc.

v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 1979). If the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the

plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when

the balance tips less decidedly. Benda v. Grand Lodge of the International Association of

Machinists, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1978). The threatened injury must be immediate. Los

Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th

Cir. 1980). And since the remedy is equitable in nature, there must be no adequate remedy at

law. Stanley v. University of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994). If the relief sought is

mandatory rather than prohibitory, the balance must more clearly favor the applicant. Dahl v.

HEM Pharm. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993).

As stated above, the court directed plaintiff to submit sufficient copies of his second

amended complaint in order to effect service of process on defendants. Under the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) guidelines, prison staff must provide the

number of copies for filing as established by court rule and to be served on all parties and others

involved in the ligation See Departmental Operations Manual §§ 14010.21, 14010.21.4 Plaintiff

asserts that the law librarian refused to make sufficient copies of the second amended complaint,

a notice of appeal, and a request to appeal. Plaintiff does not allege that he showed the law

librarian this court’s order directing plaintiff to file 11 copies of the amended complaint. 

Plaintiff refused to relinquish his documents on the ground that they were confidential, but the

second amended complaint is a public record on file with this court. On November 15, 2006,

plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory appeal, which this court processed on November 17, 2006. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his ability to pursue this action has been hindered in the least

because of prison policy or by actions of the law librarian. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

Case 2:05-cv-01628-FCD-EFB Document 45 Filed 07/17/07 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

4

351, 354, 356 (1996). Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown a probability of success on the

merits of his claims. 

The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that the balance of hardships tips in his

favor in the slightest or that there is any likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. 

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that plaintiff’s October 12, 2006, motion for a

temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction be denied and that plaintiff be given 30

days to comply with the September 6, 2006, order directing him to submit papers necessary to

effect service of process.

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 20 days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 17, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01628-FCD-EFB Document 45 Filed 07/17/07 Page 4 of 4