Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02522/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02522-8/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

EDGAR BERNABE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. No. CIV S-05-2522 LKK CMK P

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 / FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel alleges that defendants have

violated his civil rights. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. 

1. Legal Standard

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief such as a

restraining order 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 Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two

points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 07/07/06 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

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.

2. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered “many prejudices” since being incarcerated in

1991. He states that he feels stress and depression due to defendants “verbal and physical acts of

assault.” Plaintiff claims that he was hurt twice in the last eight months by defendants in separate

incidents; however, plaintiff provides no details about these incidents. Defendants have accused

plaintiff of presenting a threat to the safety of himself and others, jeopardizing the integrity of an

investigation and endangering institutional security. Plaintiff relates that he has been placed in

administrative segregation for over 100 days and that defendants are “planning further

punishments and accusations...” 

The exhibits attached to plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief indicate that

plaintiff has been placed in administrative segregation while allegations of staff misconduct are

being investigated. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is under significant threat of irreparable

injury. His allegations that defendants have harmed him are very vague. He does not point to any

specific future harm that may befall him. Instead, he claims only that defendants are planning

future punishments. Because plaintiff has not made a significant showing of a threat of

irreparable harm, the court need not reach the issue of the likelihood of success on the merits. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 07/07/06 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

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 5, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 3