Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-00622/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-00622-5/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

 Plaintiff must serve all documents conventionally in accordance with the relevant 1

provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. See Local Rule 5-135(b). Since an attorney has appeared on

behalf of defendants, documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not

on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by mailing

a copy of the document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B). 

Plaintiff must include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating the date an

accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants’ attorney and the address to which it

was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO McKINNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-99-0622 MCE PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He claims defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety when they transferred

him from a less secure to a more secure, and more dangerous, prison. On February 27, 2006, he

filed a request for an order directing he be housed alone.1

The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo

pending a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a

Case 2:99-cv-00622-MCE-EFB Document 123 Filed 03/24/06 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

temporary restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the

hearing on a preliminary injunction. It is apparent however, that requests for temporary

restraining orders which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general

standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v.

Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch.

Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting);

Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the

emphasis of the court is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the

merits of a controversy are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice.

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

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.

Plaintiff alleges he is not “correctly” housed and his classification score is illegal

and retaliatory. But he does not show he will suffer any injury or that the balance of hardships

tips in his favor.

Accordingly, IT HEREBY IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s February 27,

2006, request for an 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 20 days

Case 2:99-cv-00622-MCE-EFB Document 123 Filed 03/24/06 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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections. 

The 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 24, 2006.

\004

\mcki0622.f&r dny pi-tro

Case 2:99-cv-00622-MCE-EFB Document 123 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 3