Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01174-1/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

On the same date, plaintiff also filed an amended complaint. By separate order and 1

findings and recommendations, the amended complaint was screened and determined to state a

cognizable claim for relief against two of the named defendants; however the court

recommended that plaintiff’s claims against the other four defendants be dismissed. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL GARDNER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1174 FCD CMK P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and without counsel in this civil

rights action. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 73-302 and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a request for injunctive relief seeking an order requiring defendants

to allow him a minimum of ten hours of outdoor exercise each week and order defendants to

allow plaintiff to be seen by an independent physician to evaluate his physical and mental health.1

(Doc. 7.)

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01174-ALA Document 9 Filed 09/29/06 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

 The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief such as a

restraining order are well established. To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood

of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are

raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for

Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

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

points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. 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. Id.

Plaintiff names Scott Kernan, Jeanne Woodford, R. Mandeville, J. Walker, R. Hill

and J.S. Zuber as defendants. The gist of plaintiff’s compliant is that he is being denied adequate

access to the prison exercise yard, which has caused him to suffer several maladies. Plaintiff

alleges that he is deprived of time in the exercise yard as a result of policies promulgated by

defendants Kernan and Woodford. He alleges that defendants Mandeville, Walker, Hill, and

Zuber violated his rights by denying his grievances concerning his lack of access to the exercise

yard. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the alleged deprivations, he has lost approximately thirty

pounds and has suffered severe muscle atrophy and a “host of other medical maladies.”

The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated a significant showing of

irreparable injury. Plaintiff does not allege that he is unable to exercise within his cell and

plaintiff does not describe with any specificity his “host of other medical maladies.” Accordingly,

the court finds that the motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied. 

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01174-ALA Document 9 Filed 09/29/06 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

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (doc. 7) 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 ten 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: September 28, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01174-ALA Document 9 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3