Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00142/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00142-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE WILSON, III,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00142 LJO DLB HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S

NOTICE AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

[Doc. 10]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion entitled “Notice and Motion for

Judgment and Order in the Interest of Justice,” filed on August 14, 2007. (Court Doc. 10.) 

In his motion, Petitioner re-argues the claims that he raises in the instant petition. In

addition, Petitioner states that on June 27, 2007, he was transferred in retaliation to a higher

security level for exercising his right to file an action. Petitioner requests that the Court make

factual findings regarding his claims and impose judgment in his favor. In addition, Petitioner

requests an injunction directing prison officials to place him in the least restrictive facility. 

Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a temporary

restraining order. The Court can issue a temporary restraining order if the moving party has

shown either "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or

(2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in

Case 1:07-cv-00142-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 03/12/08 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

27

28

2

[the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762

F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc.,

725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984). 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 either 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 irreparable

injury, the Court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate either 1) a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or 2) the existence of

serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.

First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir.1987).

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate either a high probability of success on the merits or

that irreparable harm will result. First, the claim of retaliation is a challenge to his conditions of

confinement, which must be raised by way of a civil rights complaint. Second, as there is

currently a pending motion to dismiss based on untimeliness, the Court cannot at this juncture

evaluate the likelihood of the success on the merits. Third, Petitioner’s claim is conclusory in

nature as it is against unnamed individuals who are not parties to the action. Accordingly, the

motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00142-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2