Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01606/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01606-2/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

LARRY PERCIVAL,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1606 LJO WMW PC 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE MOTION 

 FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOC 12)

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed a request for preliminary injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiff

requests that the dosages and frequencies of certain medications be restored to their earlier levels.

This action proceeds on the original complaint. The allegations in the complaint mirror the

allegations in the request for temporary restraining order.

Plaintiff suffers from a gunshot injury inflicted in 1980. In 2005, Defendant physicians

reduced the dosages of Plaintiff’s medication, then discontinued it altogether. Specifically, the

physicians opined that Plaintiff needed to be “weaned” off of the medication. The physicians

were also acting pursuant to CDCR policy.

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to

Case 1:05-cv-01606-LJO-WMW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 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

the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune,

Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also

Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (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 either 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 irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. Id.

Generally, irreparable harm is presumed if a violation of the constitution is shown. 

Goldies’ Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of the State of California, 739 F.2d 466, 476 (9th Cir.

1984). But where a federal injunction is sought against a governmental entity, the party

requesting relief must show a threat of “great and immediate,” not conjectural or hypothetical,

irreparable harm. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 113 (1983); see also OratesHernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549, 557 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Concurrent with this recommendation, an order will issue, dismissing the operative

pleading, and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Because Plaintiff has not

alleged facts which state a claim for relief, he has not shown a constitutional violation, or that he

will is likely to succeed on the merits.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fifteen

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

Case 1:05-cv-01606-LJO-WMW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 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

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of

fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within

th

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01606-LJO-WMW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 3