Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01120-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIA FRAHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SURYADEVARA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01120-AWI-GSA PC

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 40 and 41)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Cecilia Fraher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California tort law. On March

28, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order prohibiting Defendants from retaliating by

delaying medical treatment, and mandating reinstatement of a medical accommodation chrono

(order). On April 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to add an exhibit. 

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.Camenisch, 451 U.S.

390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1)

a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air

Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 43 Filed 05/06/08 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

27

28

2

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a fair chance of success ofthe merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Further, a mandatory preliminary injunction such as that sought by Plaintiff in part in the instant

motion “is subject to heightened scrutiny and should not be issued unless the facts and the law

clearly favor the moving party.” Dahl v. Hem Pharmaceuticals Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir.

1993). Plaintiff is not a medical expert and is not qualified to render an opinion that she has medical

needs which require immediate treatment or that she is in need of a particular medical order, and will

suffer irreparable harm without the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Because Plaintiff has not

supported her motion with any admissible expert evidence relating to her medical needs, she has not

met her burden as the moving party. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief, filed March 28, 2008 and supplemented on April 18, 2008, be DENIED.

This Finding and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with this Finding and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file a written objection

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Finding and

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 6, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 43 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 2