Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157-17/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

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0157 MCE EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining

order and/or preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons explained below, the court

recommends that each of plaintiff’s motions be denied. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motions

A. “Motion [F]or Change of Address” (September 22, 2008)

Plaintiff states that he “moves the court for a change of address,” which the court

construes as a request for injunctive relief to prohibit an institutional transfer to North Kern State

Prison. Plaintiff states that he was notified on September 18, 2008, that he would be transferred

from High Desert State Prison to North Kern, where in 1996, he was purportedly beaten,

forcefully medicated, and subjected to racial epithets. 

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 132 Filed 06/10/09 Page 1 of 5
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

B. “Motion for Retaliation for Filing Civil Case Immediate TRO” and “Motion

for Joint District ‘TRO’ Protection Order” (November 10, 2008)

In plaintiff’s November 10, 2008 motions, he claims that while housed at High Desert,

officers extracted him from his cell, confiscated his property, and beat him. He also claims that

he was involuntarily transferred to another cell that was contaminated with pepper spray. 

Plaintiff apparently resisted officers during the cell transfer, and plaintiff was later charged with

battery on a peace officer and placed in administrative segregation. Plaintiff requests that the

court order that his legal property be returned to him to prepare for a December 9, 2008 trial in a

separate civil action and that he be placed in federal custody.

C. “Motion for Federal Placement Protection” (November 24, 2008)

Plaintiff states that on October 27, 2008, correctional officers extracted him from his cell,

beat him, placed him in administrative segregation, denied him his religious meals, and denied

him access to the prison law library. From there, plaintiff alleges that officials transferred him to

the “Z-unit,” where the windows are covered with paper and plaintiff has no “outside contact.” 

Alleging that he is continually harassed and “written up,” plaintiff requests placement in federal

custody. 

D. “Confidential Motion and Sworn Certificate” (March 9, 2009)

Plaintiff requests that the court transfer him to a federal prison because officials at High

Desert are allegedly retaliating against him for filing lawsuits. Specifically, plaintiff states that

High Desert officials falsely accused him of battery on a peace officer, and sentenced him to a

term in the Security Housing Unit. Further, plaintiff states that officials at High Desert refuse to

transfer him to Atascadero State Mental Hospital, even though a state court ordered that he be

transferred there over two years ago.

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 132 Filed 06/10/09 Page 2 of 5
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

II. Standards

A temporary restraining order is available to an applicant for a preliminary injunction

when the applicant may suffer irreparable injury before the court can hear the application for a

preliminary injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (motion for preliminary injunction shall be set for

hearing at earliest possible time after entry of temporary restraining order); Granny Goose

Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County,

415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (temporary restraining order issued in state court expired ten days after

action was removed to federal court). The standards for issuing a temporary restraining order are

the same as those for a preliminary injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); see also Hawaii County

Green Party v. Clinton, 980 F. Supp. 1160, 1163 (D. Hawai'i 1997).

A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary because threatened injury would

impair the court’s 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 very far reaching

power never to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter,

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). The Ninth Circuit standards for preliminary injunctive

relief are well established:

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve rights

pending resolution of the merits of the case by the trial.” Big

Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 868 F.2d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir.

1989). A preliminary injunction is appropriate “where plaintiffs

demonstrate either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and

the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips

sharply in their favor.” Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v.

Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) Shelley, 344

F.3d at 917 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The

irreducible minimum is that the moving party demonstrate a fair

chance of success on the merits or questions serious enough to

require litigation. No chance of success at all will not suffice.” 

Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753

(9th Cir. 1982) (internal punctuation and citations omitted).

////

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 132 Filed 06/10/09 Page 3 of 5
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

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A. , 446 F.3d 984, 990 (9th Cir. 2006). If the balance

of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a

likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly. Benda v. Grand

Lodge of the International Association of Machinists, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1978). The

threatened injury must be immediate. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. National

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). And since the remedy is equitable in

nature, there must be no adequate remedy at law. Stanley v. University of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313,

1320 (9th Cir. 1994). If the relief sought is mandatory rather than prohibitory, the balance must

more clearly favor the applicant. Dahl v. HEM Pharm. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that on September 18, 2008, he

was transferred from High Desert to Corcoran State Prison for a September 22, 2008 civil trial.

Docket No. 45. Plaintiff indicated that the trial concluded, and he therefore anticipated that he

would be transferred back to High Desert. Id. On October 7, 2008, he was transferred back to

High Desert. Docket No. 48 at 2. On March 24, 2009, plaintiff was again transferred to

Corcoran. Docket No. 124. Thereafter, on May 15, 2009, plaintiff was transferred from

Corcoran to Salinas Valley State Prison, where he was placed in the Psychiatric Program. 

Docket No. 126. Plaintiff’s placement in the Psychiatric Program appears to have satisfied, or

been a step toward satisfying, a January 11, 2007, Lassen County Superior Court order directing

that plaintiff be committed to the Department of Mental Health. Docket No. 127 at 12. 

Where a prisoner is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement,

the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless

there is some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422

U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

Plaintiff’s transfers render his claims against officials at High Desert moot, as there is no

indication that plaintiff will be transferred back to High Desert. Nor is there any indication that

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 132 Filed 06/10/09 Page 4 of 5
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

5

plaintiff will be transferred to North Kern. See Wiggins v. Rushen, 760 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir.

1985) (chance that prisoner might be retransferred to prison where injury occurred is too

speculative to demonstrate reasonable expectation that injury may again occur). 

Finally, plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief either fail to identify the purported

wrongdoers, or name individuals or entities who are not named as defendants in this action. This

court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before

it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, the court hereby RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 22, 2008 motion (docket no. 44), construed as a request for

injunctive relief, be DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s November 10, 2008 motions for temporary restraining orders (docket nos.

51 and 52), be DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s November 24, 2008 motion for federal placement (docket no. 55) be

DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff’s March 9, 2009 motion (docket no. 113) 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

“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: June 9, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 132 Filed 06/10/09 Page 5 of 5