Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00725-8/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

CURTIS SWYGERT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0725 ALA P

vs.

MARTIN VEAL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff Curtis Swygert is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a

preliminary injunction. On January 25, 2008, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion

for preliminary injunction. On February 25, 2008, plaintiff filed a reply to defendant’s

opposition. 

I

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

Case 2:06-cv-00725-ALA Document 34 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 2
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

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.

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 requests that the court prohibit defendants from moving the location of Muslim

prayer meetings to the prison’s Catholic chapel. Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 3-4. In his

reply, plaintiff states that defendants are now permitting Muslim prisoners to conduct services

within the prisons gym area. Reply to Response in Opposition at 3. Plaintiff’s request is

therefore moot and will be denied. 

III

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 7, 2006, motion for

preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot. 

/////

DATED: March 17, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-00725-ALA Document 34 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2