Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00960-7/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTOINE L. ARDDS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM KNIPP, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-960-KJM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He has filed an “ex parte motion” requesting that CDCR be restrained from retaliating 

against him, which the court construes as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. ECF No. 47. 

So construed, the court recommends that the motion be denied. 

 A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that 

would impair the courts ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc. 

v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 

F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching 

power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 

326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). In order to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party 

must demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable 

harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 

injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 54 Filed 05/17/16 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 

27 

28 

2

2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). The Ninth Circuit has 

also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to preliminary injunctions—that is, balancing 

the elements of the preliminary injunction test, so that a stronger showing of one element may 

offset a weaker showing of another—survives Winter and continues to be valid. Alliance for Wild 

Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010). “In other words, ‘serious questions 

going to the merits,’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support 

issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” 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). 

The complaint alleges due process claims against defendants Knipp and Gonzales, and 

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety/medical needs claims against defendants 

Mulford and Mockley. ECF Nos. 22, 23. In the motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff complains 

that in retaliation for commencing a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California, unspecified staff at the California Men’s Colony, East (where plaintiff is 

now housed), have made it difficult for him to obtain legal documents from his property.1 As 

relief, plaintiff seeks an order compelling “CDCR” to “cease any further retaliation.” ECF No. 47 

at 2. 

Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown any 

relationship between the preliminary relief sought and the subject matter of this lawsuit. The 

motion is not accompanied by any evidence establishing a likelihood of success in this action, or 

that the injunction sought is necessary to preserve the court’s ability to grant effective relief on 

his claims and that it is the least intrusive means for doing so. Plaintiff also fails to present 

evidence establishing that the balance of equities tips in his favor or that the requested injunctive 

 1

 In a subsequent filing, however, plaintiff informed the court that he was able to prepare 

“an adequate response to defendants’ summary judgment [motion],” which is currently pending 

before this court. ECF No. 52 at 1. 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 54 Filed 05/17/16 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 

27 

28 

3

relief is in the public interest. Thus, plaintiff has not made the showing required to meet his 

burden as the party moving for preliminary injunctive relief, and his request must be denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 47), 

construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, be denied. 

 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 fourteen 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: May 17, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 54 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3