Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00530/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00530-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

RANDEL SADSAD SANTOS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0530 LKK DAD P

vs.

KUMA J. DEBOO, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a federal prisoner who has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

ad subjiciendum. Before the court is petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order which

was filed concurrently with his habeas petition. Petitioner requests an order prohibiting

respondents from transferring him “outside the jurisdiction of this court while litigation is

pending, so as to maintain jurisdiction over the Petitioner so that the corresponding habeas

corpus action can be adjudicated.” (Req. for TRO at 1.)

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief 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,

Case 2:07-cv-00530-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 05/09/07 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

2

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. 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.

The court finds that petitioner has failed to demonstrate how his transfer to an

institution outside the boundaries of the Eastern District of California would result in irreparable

injury. Contrary to petitioner’s expressed concern, his transfer to such an institution would not

deprive this court of jurisdiction over this action. Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994 (9th

Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's March 19, 2007

request for a temporary restraining order 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, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner 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).

DATED: May 8, 2007.

DAD:4

sant0530.tro

Case 2:07-cv-00530-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2