Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600-6/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

THOMAS CLINTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1600 LKK CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302(b)(21). Before the court is plaintiff’s 133 page

“Motion for Relief F.R.C.P.R., Rule 65" filed on April 17, 2006. For relief, plaintiff seeks that

the court order defendants to grant plaintiff’s 602 appeal in full and that defendants grant the 602

appeal which is attached to the motion in full at the directors level. (Doc. 29 at 6:24-31.)

At the onset, the court notes that plaintiff’s previous request for injunctive

relief was denied on March 20, 2006. Plaintiff’s previous request sought injunctive relief in the

form of ordering defendant California Department of Corrections (CDC) to: (1) not retaliate

against plaintiff for filing prison grievances; (2) restrict access to plaintiff’s central file; (3)

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 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

exercise extreme caution in transferring any inmates that were housed at the California

Correctional Center-Susanville and Trinity River Conservation Camp # 3 at the same time that

plaintiff was housed there; (4) stop opening plaintiff’s confidential mail; (5) do all photocopying

of confidential legal documents in plaintiff’s presence and to give such documents directly to

plaintiff; (6) exercise extreme caution not to exercise any reprisals; (7) leave all of plaintiff’s legal

documents in visual sight of plaintiff and not touch plaintiff’s legal documents; (8) give plaintiff

all means necessary to ensure plaintiff’s access to the court. That request also stemmed from

plaintiff’s allegations that he was a victim of a prison rape. 

Plaintiff’s April 17, 2006 motion for injunctive relief contains several pages of

editorial comments concerning the failures of the Department of Corrections in addressing sexual

assaults in prison. It also contains correspondence received by plaintiff from various

organizations and copies of plaintiff’s 602 appeals. In plaintiff’s 602, which he seeks the court to

direct the Department of Corrections to grant, plaintiff states that “the sexual assault booklet is

grossly under developed and out dated...” and that the “CDCR must amend the [procedures for

addressing sexual assault.]” (Doc. 29 at 12.) 

In general, a preliminary injunction is appropriate if a plaintiff demonstrates either

(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or

(2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardship tips sharply

in plaintiff's favor. See Sony Computer Entertainment Am., Inc. v. Bleem, LLC, 214 F.3d 1022,

1025 (9th Cir.2000); Prudential Real Estate Affiliates v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 874 (9th

Cir.2000). “These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required

degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Prudential Real

Estate, 204 F.3d at 874. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. See Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). 

///

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 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

The court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s apparent frustrations in the Department of

Corrections’ procedures for addressing sexual assaults in prison. However, federal courts must

afford deference to the appropriate state prison authorities in matters of prison administration, and

therefore are required to balance the state's interests against the need to protect an inmate's

constitutional rights. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987) ( “Prison administration is

AAA a task that has been committed to the responsibility of AAA [the legislative and executive]

branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint.”). The

undersigned finds that the injunctive relief requested by plaintiff will adversely impact the prison

system because it would compel prison officials to take action—granting plaintiff’s 602 appeal,

that go beyond the requirements of applicable state administrative rules. In short, the proper

mechanism for plaintiff to challenge an adverse ruling on his 602 appeal is to file a civil rights

action in federal court, not to ask the court to direct prison officials to grant the 602 appeal.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

/// 

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 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

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary or permanent injunctive relief (doc. 29) 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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The 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: April 20, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4