Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00306-8/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

RILEY NOONKESTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0306 RRB GGH P

vs.

TEHAMA COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is confined in Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to the Sexually Violent

Predator Act (SVPA). This action is proceeding on the original complaint filed February 13,

2006, against Tehama County Sheriff Parker and the Tehama County Board of Supervisors. 

Plaintiff challenges conditions of confinement at the Tehama County jail during his incarceration

there for civil commitment proceedings.

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s May 10, 2007, motion for a protective

order. The court construes this motion as a motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges that he

was subjected to unconstitutional conditions during transport from Atascadero State Hospital to

the jail. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants attempted to force him to sign a release of liability

form that was presented to him as a waiver to be housed in the open population section of the

jail. Plaintiff alleges that when he refused to sign the form, he was threatened with placement in

Case 2:06-cv-00306-AK Document 34 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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

solitary confinement.

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

well established. “The traditional equitable criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are

(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff

if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4)

advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).” Dollar Rent A Car v. Travelers Indem.

Co., 774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1985). The criteria are traditionally treated as alternative

tests. “Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates

‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.’” Martin

v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting William Inglis &

Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975)). The Ninth

Circuit has reiterated that under either formulation of the principles, if the probability of success

on the merits is low, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied:

Martin explicitly teaches that “[u]nder this last part of the

alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in

favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible

minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits.”

Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Martin, 740 F.2d at 675).

On November 7, 2007, the court ordered defendants to file further briefing

addressing plaintiff’s claim that he was threatened with placement in solitary confinement if he

did not sign a waiver. The court ordered that defendant were not required to address plaintiff’s

claim concerning transportation conditions, as the complaint contained no claims regarding this

issue.

On November 26, 2007, defendants filed a response to the November 7, 2007,

order. According to defendants, pursuant to the jail policy, inmates awaiting SVP hearings are

Case 2:06-cv-00306-AK Document 34 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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

held in administrative segregation. Clay declaration, ¶ 4. Plaintiff, as an SVP, was classified for

placement in administrative segregation. Id., ¶ 6. Plaintiff’s file from his last stay at the jail

contained no documentation indicating that jail staff requested that plaintiff be removed from

administrative segregation. Id., ¶ 7. There is also no documentation regarding a request for a

waiver from plaintiff. Id. Nor is there any documentation of a request by plaintiff to be

removed from administrative segregation. Id. 

If an inmate requests to be removed from administrative segregation, it is the

policy of the jail that the inmate obtain a waiver from the court to allow such a placement. Id., ¶

8. If plaintiff returns to the jail, he will be placed in administrative segregation unless he obtain

the necessary waiver from the court. Id., ¶ 10. Plaintiff was not threatened with placement in

solitary confinement. Id., ¶ 12. There is a classification called “disciplinary segregation,” but

plaintiff was not threatened with placement in disciplinary segregation. Id.

Based on the information provided by defendants, the court does not find that

plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of a threat of irreparable injury if his motion is not

granted. According to defendants, plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation and not

threatened with placement in solitary confinement if he did not sign a waiver. Defendants

represent that plaintiff will again be housed in administrative segregation if he is returned to the

Tehama County jail. Based on these representations, the court finds that plaintiff does not face

the threat of being housed in solitary confinement or the general population if he is returned to

the Tehama County Jail.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s May 10, 2007,

motion for a protective order, construed as a 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 twenty

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 2:06-cv-00306-AK Document 34 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 12/13/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

noon306.po

 

Case 2:06-cv-00306-AK Document 34 Filed 12/13/07 Page 4 of 4