Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166-11/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

TIMOTHY BRYAN BROOKS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2166 MCE PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. In the October 2, 2003, second-amended complaint, plaintiff seeks damages and

injunctive relief upon the ground defendant Milligard failed to protect plaintiff from other

prisoners, defendants Harmon and Yin-Hui were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs and defendant Harmon violated plaintiff’s right of access to the courts. On April 19, 2006,

plaintiff filed a document styled, “Emergency Motion to Prevent Same Illegal Placement that

Caused this Civil Rights Action! Investigation is Requested!” He seeks an order directing

individuals not named as parties to lower plaintiff’s classification level and to transfer him either

to Folsom State Prison - Level One Yard or Vacaville State Prison. The court construes this as a

request for a preliminary injunction.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 87 Filed 05/26/06 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

LEGAL STANDARDS

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are

well established. “The traditional equitable criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are

(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff

if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4)

advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).” Dollar Rent A Car v. Travelers Indem.

Co., 774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1985). The criteria are traditionally treated as alternative

tests. “Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates

‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.’” Martin

v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting William Inglis &

Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975)). The Ninth

Circuit has reiterated that under either formulation of the principles, if the probability of success

on the merits is low, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied:

Martin explicitly teaches that “[u]nder this last part of the

alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in

favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible

minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits.”

Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Martin, 740 F.2d at 675).

Only parties or non-parties with notice who are shown to be in active concert or

participation with defendants may be enjoined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Zenith

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

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff alleges Associate Warden Kays and a Correctional Officer Aldredge of

Pelican Bay State Prison have increased plaintiff’s custody level and denied plaintiff’s request to

be transferred to a less secure prison upon the ground plaintiff’s record demonstrates plaintiff is

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 87 Filed 05/26/06 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

too violent for a less secure setting. Plaintiff disagrees with their decision.

Plaintiff makes no showing that Associate Warden Kays or Correctional Officer

Aldredge made their decisions for an improper reason and acted in concert or participation with

any defendant. Plaintiff also fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits and the balance

of hardships tips in his favor.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s April 19, 2006,

motion 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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, [xxwho] may file written

objections. The 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 25, 2006.

\004

\broo2166. f&r 49A

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 87 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 3