Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00456-1/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

GREGORY ANDREW HALL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-02-0456 MCE KJM P

vs.

C. PLILER, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On December 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Legal

TRO/Preliminary Injunction; Notice of Constructive Intent; Affidavit.” Plaintiff explains his

intent to seek a temporary restraining order against D.L. Runnels, the Warden of High Desert

State Prison, top-ranking subordinates, and “all personnel” under his administration; plaintiff

also seeks transfer to a different facility. Although the basis of the motion is not entirely clear,

plaintiff appears to be alleging that maintenance personnel have threatened to have him killed,

certain named officers have used racial epithets when addressing him, and various guards have

beaten and assaulted him in retaliation for his litigation. 

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

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

Case 2:02-cv-00456-MCE-KJM Document 103 Filed 04/26/05 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

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

restraining orders that are 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.

Plaintiff’s allegations of threats and verbal harassment do not constitute the sort of

irreparable injury necessary for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. See Gaut v. Sunn,

810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (“it trivializes the eighth amendment to believe a threat

constitutes a constitutional wrong”); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 

1987) (verbal harassment or abuse by itself is not a constitutional deprivation). Moreover,

plaintiff’s claims of assault in the past do not translate into the type of presently existing actual

threat so as to justify a restraining order. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

395 U.S. 100, 130-31 (1969). Plaintiff has not made a showing sufficient for injunctive relief.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s December 13, 2004 motion for

injunctive relief be denied. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00456-MCE-KJM Document 103 Filed 04/26/05 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

3

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 twenty

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

objections with the court. The 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).

DATED: April 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

hall0456.tro

Case 2:02-cv-00456-MCE-KJM Document 103 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 3