Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166-19/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BRYAN BROOKS,

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

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

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

complaint, he alleges that 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 May 22, 2006, plaintiff

filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of 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 injury

would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, 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). 

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 106 Filed 10/03/06 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

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).

Plaintiff seeks an order directing his transfer from Pelican Bay State Prison to Folsom

State Prison because he requires medical treatment not available at Pelican Bay and because state

law requires he be confined in a facility near his home, directing prison officials to provide

increased access to the law library and directing prison staff not to retaliate against him. 

Plaintiff has not identified with specificity to whom the court’s order should be directed. 

Although plaintiff attaches a radiology report from May 7, 2002, it contains no recommendation

of treatment. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he requires any medical attention related to this

case or in order to pursue this case. 

Plaintiff cannot show he requires greater access to legal materials or a law library since in

the past six months he has filed one “Emergency Motion for Investigation,” three requests for

preliminary injunctions, a motion for summary judgment, a request that the court direct

defendants to comply with an order, a request for funds for investigation, objections to findings

and recommendations, a request to disqualify a different magistrate judge, a pretrial statement

and a request to grant his motion for summary judgment. 

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 106 Filed 10/03/06 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

Plaintiff has not identified any particular person from whom he is in imminent danger of

retaliation and whether prison officials are violating state law by failing to house him near his

family is not in the least related to this action or plaintiff’s ability to obtain relief in this action.

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing that there is a likelihood he will succeed on

the merits and he requires injunctive relief to avoid irreparable harm. 

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that plaintiff’s May 22, 2006, motion for

injunctive relief 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, plaintiff may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 2, 2006.

\broo2166.f&r dny pi tro merits

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 106 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3