Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02856/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02856-22/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 

JAMONT L. CALHOUN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. GOMEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2856-GEB-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

§ 1983. On December 7, 2015, he notified the court that he had been transferred to California 

State Prison, Corcoran (Corcoran) from Correctional Medical Facility (CMF) in Vacaville. ECF 

No. 85. Plaintiff stated that he would be unable to proceed with his deposition, which was 

scheduled for December 16, 2015 at CMF. Id. He further claimed that even if the deposition 

were rescheduled to take place at Corcoran, he would not be prepared to participate because he 

did not have his legal property. Id. On December 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for a 

preliminary injunction requesting an order for the return of his legal property. ECF No. 86.

Plaintiff again claims that without the legal property he will be unable to participate in his 

upcoming deposition. Id. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion and represent that the property 

has now been returned to plaintiff. ECF No. 87. For the reasons stated below, the court 

recommends that the motion be denied. 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-02856-GEB-DB Document 88 Filed 12/21/15 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

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

would impair the courts 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). In order 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 (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 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). 

Defendants’ opposition indicates that all of plaintiff’s legal property was returned to him 

on December 8, 2015. ECF No. 87, Morgan Decl., Ex. A. Defendants also represent that on 

December 3, 2015, after being informed that plaintiff had been transferred to Corcoran, they renoticed plaintiff’s deposition to take place on December 22, 2015, at Corcoran. As plaintiff 

already has his legal property and is now housed at the same institution where his deposition is 

schedule to take place, his request for a preliminary injunction is moot. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-02856-GEB-DB Document 88 Filed 12/21/15 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction (ECF No. 86) 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.” 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: December 21, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-02856-GEB-DB Document 88 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 3