Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01904-3/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

 On October 18, 2006, the court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve defendants. Service

has not been completed and defendants have not answered the complaint.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JODEE GARRETT, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1904 DFL EFB P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

He seeks damages on the ground that defendants allegedly failed to protect him from an attack

by another prisoner.1

Plaintiff requests an order directing the law librarian at Mule Creek State Prison

to provide him with paper and envelopes for him to use in this litigation. The court construes the

request as a motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons explained below, the court

finds that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

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), and therefore will not issue unless necessary because threatened

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 4
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

injury would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra OnLine, 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). 

To prevail upon an application for a prohibitory preliminary injunction, plaintiff

must demonstrate either probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury,

or serious questions regarding the merits of his claims and a balance of hardships tipping sharply

in his favor. Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 1979). 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). 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).

To prevail on a motion for a prohibitory injunction, plaintiff must show the relief

sought is necessary to preserve the status quo and that the alleged threat is immediate and

irreparable at law. Because the relief plaintiff seeks would require prison officials affirmatively

to alter application of departmental regulations with regard to plaintiff, plaintiff’s burden is

exceptionally rigorous.

Here, plaintiff has failed to show that he is likely to prevail on the merits. 

Assuming that he has at least raised serious questions going to the merits, he has not

demonstrated that the balance of relative hardships sharply tips in favor of granting preliminary

injunctive relief. Indeed, weighing the relative hardships, the court finds that plaintiff has not

shown a threat of irreparable harm. He alleges in the motion that the law librarian at Mule Creek

State Prison is required to provide him with paper and envelopes for him to use in this litigation

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 4
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

and has failed to do so. The allegation has little if anything to do with the merits of his

complaint, which alleges that the named defendants failed to protect him from an attack by

another prisoner. Moreover, he does not address how he obtained the paper, writing implement

and envelope to file his request for preliminary injunction. Whatever the status regarding access

to paper and writing materials and its nexus to the merits of this case, plaintiff has not shown

irreparable harm and, indeed, it appears not to have affected his ability to litigate this action. He

has managed to file the complaint and the instant motion. Moreover, defendants have not yet

been served and plaintiff faces no immediate filing dates. Any alleged refusal of the law

librarian to provide the materials has not threatened irreparable harm.

Furthermore, it is not clear that there is any basis for issuing a Rule 65 order

against the law librarian. 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). The law librarian

is not a party to this action and plaintiff makes no allegations showing that she is acting in

concert with defendants.

Because plaintiff has not demonstrated a combination of either probable success

on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions have been raised

regarding the merits of his claims and that the balance of relative hardships tips sharply in his

favor, he has not met his burden on the instant motion. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s

motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied. 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s November 2, 2006,

request for a preliminary injunction 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

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 4
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

“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: November 29, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 11/30/06 Page 4 of 4