Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193-7/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY E. WALKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MOHADJER, Clinical Psychologist, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P 

 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff has previously been cautioned that continuing to file documents seriatim in this 

case, particularly prior to affording the court an opportunity to address earlier requests, might 

subject plaintiff to sanctions. ECF No. 28 at 2-3. Notwithstanding, on October 1, 2013, plaintiff 

has once again filed a putative motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. 

ECF No. 38. Plaintiff has fallen into a pattern of repeatedly filing deficient motions for 

immediate injunctive relief, recounting in each filing the most recent events in his housing and 

classification status. By Order filed on September 27, 2013, this court found plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint appropriate for service. ECF No. 37. Evidently plaintiff’s most recent 

duplicative and insubstantial request for a TRO/PI crossed in the mail with the September 27th 

Order. 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 10/03/13 Page 1 of 5
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

In his latest request, plaintiff updates his continuing complaints that he is not receiving the 

medical treatment he seeks for his mental health conditions. He continues to complain that he 

cannot be double-celled in general population as it would bring on his anxiety arising from past 

sexual abuse trauma. But plaintiff does not produce any evidence that he is, in fact, being 

double-celled. Instead, he appears to be bouncing back and forth between crisis bed placement 

and placement in administrative segregation as a safety and security concern. 

Plaintiff alleges he is the victim of retaliation for the filing of several lawsuits, including 

this one, and that he is not receiving the appropriate mental health treatment. Plaintiff includes a 

copy of a lockup order, dated September 17, 2013, wherein it is stated that plaintiff is being 

placed in Ad Seg at CMF1 due to staff safety concerns. ECF No. 38 at 17. It appears from this 

document that plaintiff is to be confined to Ad Seg until he receives a review by an institutional 

classification committee and transfer to another institution. Id. However, plaintiff asserts that as 

of September 26, 2013 he is back in crisis bed placement. Id. at 13. Plaintiff expresses 

discontent with the varying level of mental health care he claims to be receiving at CMF while 

also protesting any prison transfer. Plaintiff continues to believe that only treatment in a hospital 

facility such as Atascadero State Hospital is adequate to address the post-traumatic stress disorder 

he alleges that he suffers as a result of sexual abuse. The underlying second amended complaint 

seeks placement in a state hospital as permanent injunctive relief, as well as money damages. 

 Standards Governing Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order2

 The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending 

a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a temporary 

restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the hearing on 

a preliminary injunction. It is apparent, however, that requests for temporary restraining orders 

which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general standards that govern 

the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 

 

1

 California Medical Facility. 

2

 The court has previously set forth the legal standards for issuance of a TRO and a preliminary 

injunction. ECF No. 20 at 2-3 (findings and recommendations adopted by Order at ECF No. 32. 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 10/03/13 Page 2 of 5
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 

3

U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. 

Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); Century Time Ltd. v. 

Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the emphasis of the court 

is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the merits of a controversy 

are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice. 

Standards Governing Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction 

“A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’ . . . never awarded as 

of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 90 (2008) (internal citations omitted). “A plaintiff 

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 

tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Assn, Inc. v. City 

of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff 

demonstrates . . . “serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance [] tips sharply 

toward the plaintiff, . . . assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). 

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

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 

injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the 

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 

harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 

\\\\ 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 10/03/13 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

The court is unable to assess the likelihood of plaintiff’s success on the merits of the 

second amended complaint at this early juncture. Defendants have yet to be served and thus have 

not had an opportunity to respond to the allegations. 

Likelihood of Irreparable Harm 

Plaintiff does not demonstrate that he is being or will be subjected to irreparable harm. 

His own motion indicates that he is now back in crisis bed placement. 

Balance of the Equities 

 Plaintiff continues to seek a transfer to a state hospital both for psychiatric treatment and 

as a remedy for his allegedly improper and retaliatory ad seg placement. On screening, the court 

did not find that the second amended complaint states a claim of retaliation. See ECF No. 14. 

Moreover, as plaintiff has previously been told, the federal courts are generally loath to interfere 

with internal discipline in federal or state prisons. Winsby v. Walsh, 321 F. Supp. 523, 526 (C.D. 

Cal. 1971). In general, prison officials’ housing and classification decisions do not implicate a 

prisoner’s constitutional rights. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). Nor 

does the Constitution guarantee a prisoner placement in a particular prison or protect an inmate 

against being transferred from one institution to another. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-

225 (1976). 

The challenge . . . in prison condition cases, is to uphold the 

Constitution in such a manner that respects the state’s unique 

interest in managing its prison population. It is a challenge that 

requires us to draw constitutional lines when necessary, yet 

minimize any intrusion into state affairs. 

Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1279 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

Regarding mental health treatment, the balance of the equities does not favor judicial 

intervention at this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff does not demonstrate that he is no longer 

being monitored for suicide risk and is not receiving mental health services. Once again, on the 

present record, it cannot be concluded that these measures are inadequate. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 10/03/13 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

 Public Interest 

No identifiable public interest would be served by the court’s interference with plaintiff’s 

treatment or housing. 

Conclusion 

For all the reasons set forth above, plaintiff has not established his entitlement to 

immediate injunctive relief. 

 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s insufficiently supported motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction (ECF 

No. 38) be denied; 

2. Plaintiff be cautioned that he will be sanctioned for an abuse of process should he 

continue to engage in seriatim filings. 

 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)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 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: October 2, 2013 

AC:009 

walk1193.mtn 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 10/03/13 Page 5 of 5