Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01332/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01332-2/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

JASON THOMAS,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 1332 LJO WMW PC 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER (DOC 13, 14)

D. SHEPPARD-BROOKS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

This action proceeds against Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference

and retaliation. Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court restraining correctional officials from

“dealing with the plaintiff’s mail, complaints, or anything relating or directly dealing with the

Plaintiff.

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

Case 1:06-cv-01332-JLT Document 17 Filed 03/13/08 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

2

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in its favor.”

Arcamuzi v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9 Cir. 1987). Under either approach

th

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 demonstrate a fair chance of success on the merits, or questions

serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

Concurrent with this recommendation, an order will be entered, dismissing Plaintiff’s

retaliation claims with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his request for

injunctive relief alleges the same facts as the second amended complaint. Because there is no

operative pleading regarding these claims, the motion should be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive

relief be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within ten

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a 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).

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01332-JLT Document 17 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2