Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02582/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02582-1/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

ALBERT POON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2582 FCD DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction.

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,

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

Case 2:06-cv-02582-DOC Document 14 Filed 06/18/07 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

2

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.

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).

Here, plaintiff seeks an preliminary injunction, ordering the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its officers not to double-cell plaintiff with

other inmates during the pendency of this lawsuit. (Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff’s accompanying

affidavit alleges “I truly and firmly believe I am again placed in the similar situation that led to

my hospitalization, and would likely suffer another attack, which clearly will be irreparable and

unnecessary injury, but easily preventable by an Order prohibiting the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitations and it its officers from double-celling me.” (Aff. at 1-2.) 

The court will recommend denying plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s motion is premature. No defendants have been served at this time and thus have not

been provided an opportunity to respond to plaintiff’s allegations. Moreover, plaintiff has failed

to demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted. The

panic attack plaintiff refers to in his affidavit occurred two years ago at a different prison with a

different cellmate. There is no evidence that plaintiff faces the real and immediate threat of a

similar injury at CSP-Solano where he is currently confined. Speculative injury does not

constitute irreparable harm. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674

(9th Cir. 1988); Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s November 29,

2006 motion for a preliminary injunction be denied without prejudice.

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

Case 2:06-cv-02582-DOC Document 14 Filed 06/18/07 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

3

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: June 15, 2007.

DAD:9

poon2582.48

Case 2:06-cv-02582-DOC Document 14 Filed 06/18/07 Page 3 of 3