Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00274/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00274-0/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

Monte Lee Bridges,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0274 FCD CMK P

vs.

D.L. Runnels, et al., 

Defendant.

 / ORDER

Currently before the court is plaintiff’s January 31, 2005 request to reinstate his

motion for a preliminary injunction and his April 4, 2005 motion for “expedited action” on his

request to reinstate his preliminary injunction. 

Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 12, 2005, seeking a

court order that plaintiff be granted, among other things, permanent single cell status,

classification as medically disabled, which would prevent him from working, and one hour of

out-of-cell exercise daily, including during lock-down periods. 

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

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 42 Filed 05/10/05 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

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

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.

Here, plaintiff has not made a showing that he faces irreparable harm if injunctive

relief is not granted. Plaintiff makes several conclusory statements that if he is not granted single

cell status, he “will be killed or forced to kill.” Similarly, plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of

success on the merits of his claim. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT his requests to reinstate his motion for injunctive relief

(doc. 39) and to expedited action on his request for injunctive relief (doc. 41) are denied. 

DATED: May 9, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 42 Filed 05/10/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 42 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 3