Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00670/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00670-20/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 

E. CHILDS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0670-TLN-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

§ 1983, moves for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. He claims that his 

life is in imminent danger because officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility may 

transfer him to Salinas Valley State Prison, where he has unspecified safety concerns. He 

requests an order requiring that his safety concerns be investigated before he is transferred. For 

the reasons that follow, the request should be denied. 

 A temporary restraining order may be issued upon a showing “that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 

in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose of such an order is to preserve the 

status quo and to prevent irreparable harm “just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 

longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439, 94 S. Ct. 

1113, 39 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1974). “The standards for granting a temporary restraining order and a 

Case 2:13-cv-00670-TLN-EFB Document 104 Filed 01/17/17 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

preliminary injunction are identical.” Haw. County Green Party v. Clinton, 980 F. Supp. 1160, 

1164 (D. Haw. 1997); cf. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 

(9th Cir. 2001) (observing that an analysis of a preliminary injunction is “substantially identical” 

to an analysis of a temporary restraining order). 

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

would impair the court’s 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). 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. 

2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 

249 (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 the 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). 

Plaintiff fails to meet that standard. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendants at 

the California Medical Facility left him handcuffed in his cell for 24 hours because of his 

participation in a hunger strike, and that he was subsequently denied medical care despite his 

“obvious” need for medical attention. See ECF Nos. 16, 19. His motion for injunctive relief does 

Case 2:13-cv-00670-TLN-EFB Document 104 Filed 01/17/17 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

not involve the California Medical Facility, the defendants in this action, or his Eighth 

Amendment claims. Because his motion addresses conduct that is not a subject of this civil 

action, it does not demonstrate either a likelihood of success or a serious question going to the 

merits of his complaint. Generally, such unrelated allegations must be pursued through the prison 

administrative process and then litigated in a separate action. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 

1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) and Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004-07 

(9th Cir. 2010) (together holding that claims must be exhausted prior to the filing of the original 

or supplemental complaint); Jones v. Felker, No. CIV S-08-0096 KJM EFB P, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 13730, at *11-15 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011). In addition, plaintiff fails to show that he will 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief. Although plaintiff claims that his 

life will be in “imminent danger” if he is transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison, he provides 

no evidence to substantiate or further clarify these speculative and conclusory allegations. For 

these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction 

must be denied. 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary 

restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 101) 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that 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: January 17, 2017. 

Case 2:13-cv-00670-TLN-EFB Document 104 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 3