Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01088/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01088-1/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

ALVARO QUEZADA,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 1088 OWW WMW PC 

vs. ORDER RE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (DOC 11)

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation at Kern Valley State Prison, is proceeding against defendant correctional officials

employed by the CDCR at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint sets

forth allegations that he and other inmates are being denied adequate access to the inmate

grievance process. 

In a concurrently entered order, the Court dismissed the first amended complaint on

which this action proceeds, with leave to amend the complaint. The first amended complaint

proceeded on claims of inadequate access to the prison grievance process and retaliation. The

claims regarding access to the grievance process were dismissed on the ground that Plaintiff does

Case 1:06-cv-01088-OWW -GBC Document 17 Filed 03/21/08 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

not have a protected interest in the prison grievance process, because there is no entitlement to a

specific grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9 Cir. 2003). The th

retaliation claim was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim

for relief for retaliation. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Plaintiff seeks an order restraining Defendants from:

1. Associating Plaintiff with disruptive prison gangs who are

continually on lockdown.

2. Refusing to admonish institutional memorandums which

conclusively distinguish Plaintiff from association and or

affiliation with “any” disruptive prison gangs.

3. Depriving Plaintiff of earned credits and participation in

recreational activities according to his privilege Group A-1-A

status.

4. Arbitrary punishment that is being imposed on Plaintiff without

cause or legal justification, and due process of law.

5. Continual lockdown which limits Plaintiff physical access to the

law library for legal research.

6. Obstructing Plaintiff’s post deprivation remedies available

through the institutional appeals procedures,

7. That Plaintiff be allowed to go before a committee and be reclassified as an (other0 to cease all deliberate affiliation to the

Hispanic disruptive prison gangs by prison staff.

Plaintiff submits his declaration in support of his motion. The crux of Plaintiff’s

complaint is a January 4, 2007, decision by prison officials to place disruptive Hispanic gangs on

lockdown. Though Plaintiff declares that he was “not effected” by the lockdown, he was “met

with resistance by staff” concerning his ethnicity. Plaintiff, classified as Mexican, has sought to

have his classification changed to “other” as he does not desire to be associated with the

disruptive Hispanic gangs. Plaintiff declares that in past lockdowns, he was able to go to

program. Plaintiff also restates generally the allegations in the first amended complaint

regarding his dissatisfaction with the prison grievance process. Plaintiff also makes a general

Case 1:06-cv-01088-OWW -GBC Document 17 Filed 03/21/08 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

reference to danger associated with prison gangs, but he does not identify any particular harm he

is subjected to. Further, most of the individuals identified in Plaintiff’s declaration are not

named defendants in this action. There are no allegations in the first amended complaint

regarding Plaintiff’s ethnic classification or housing status.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the balance of

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in its favor.”

Arcamuzi v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9 Cir. 1987). Under either approach

th

the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction

should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare

minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success on the merits, or questions

serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

Because the operative pleading in this action fails to state a claim for relief, the Court

finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a probability of success on the merits. Further, the

declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion does not establish a significant threat of irreparable

injury. Plaintiff refers to generalized harm regarding his classification, but does not indicate any

particular harm that he is subjected to. Plaintiff’s declaration indicates that the disruptive gangs

are on lockdown. Plaintiff’s evidence therefore indicates that prison officials are taking steps to

minimize the danger of harm. 

Further, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims of denial of adequate access to the

inmate grievance process, and retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. 

As noted, the first amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief as to either of those claims. 

Case 1:06-cv-01088-OWW -GBC Document 17 Filed 03/21/08 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

Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to injunctive relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief is denied.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01088-OWW -GBC Document 17 Filed 03/21/08 Page 4 of 4