Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02659/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02659-33/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

TIMOTHY O’KEEFE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s May 6, 2015 motion for injunctive 

relief. (ECF No. 203.) For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.

This action is proceeding on the fifth amended complaint filed November 14, 2014. (ECF 

No. 171). Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to provide him with adequate mental health 

care for exhibitionism, voyeurism and paraphilia. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff requests injunctive relief in 

the form of an order directing defendants to provide him with treatment for these conditions. (Id.

at 14.) 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:11-cv-02659-KJM-KJN Document 209 Filed 05/14/15 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

27

28

2

In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks an order preventing defendants 

from elevating his level of mental health care treatment from “CCCMS” to “EOP.” (ECF No. 

203 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that the EOP level of care is not appropriate for him. (Id.) Plaintiff 

alleges that half of the prisoners who are EOP are low functioning and plaintiff cannot relate to 

them. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that the other half of prisoners who are EOP are “playing” in 

order to be at that level of care. (Id.) 

In order to obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff must establish the following: 1) he is likely to 

succeed on the merits; 2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief; 3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and 4) an injunction is in the public interest. 

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the subject matter of his pending motion for 

injunctive relief has any bearing on his likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying 

claim. A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show “[a] relationship between the injury 

claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Harrington, 

42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff has not demonstrated how his claim alleging that the 

EOP level of care is not appropriate for him is related to the claim on which this action is 

proceeding, i.e., defendants are not providing him with adequate treatment for voyeurism, 

exhibitionism and paraphilia. Because the conduct plaintiff seeks to enjoin appears to have no 

bearing on plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits, the pending motion for injunctive relief 

should be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 

relief (ECF No. 203) 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 fourteen 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 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

Case 2:11-cv-02659-KJM-KJN Document 209 Filed 05/14/15 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

27

28

3

parties are 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: May 14, 2015

Ok2659.tro

Case 2:11-cv-02659-KJM-KJN Document 209 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 3