Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03167/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03167-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 02:437 Federal Election Commission

---

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

CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, No. 2:11-CV-3167-TLN-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J. WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 40). 

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the

moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res.

Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser

standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer

1

Case 2:11-cv-03167-TLN-CMK Document 44 Filed 03/01/16 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

controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). 

In this case, plaintiff states:

To the Honorable District Judge T.L. Nunley, on 9-9-15, I was

entering the law library on C-Facility, of C.S.P.–Sacramento with my legal

work in hand, including a copy of my Amended Complaint in this lawsuit. 

I was ordered to the holding cages in the C-Fac. Sallyport and my legal

work taken. 

I was ordered to strip search and my legal work was examined. 

Correctional Officers that are Defendants in that suit was present and

when they seen their names, they became very hostile, aggressive, and

threatening. Making statements like “Your legal books, and all your legal

papers are going in the trash,” “We tired of your 602's, lawsuits, and

complaining.” 

I was sent to Administrative Segregation Unit on issues unrelated

to my legal work and there is no legitimate reason for them (C.O.’s) to

throw away my legal work, including all my material evidence in this case,

and my books (legal), other than to stop me from bringing this lawsuit to

justice. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any irreparable harm that is likely to occur in the absence of

intervention by the court. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief (Doc. 40) 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 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

2

Case 2:11-cv-03167-TLN-CMK Document 44 Filed 03/01/16 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

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

DATED: February 29, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-03167-TLN-CMK Document 44 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 3