Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799-6/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

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-2799 FCD PAN P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, WARDEN,

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed July

11, 2003. Plaintiff’s claims arose at California State Prison-Sacramento and this action is

proceeding against several defendants employed at that institution. On May 22, 2006, plaintiff

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. In this motion, plaintiff reargues the dismissal

of a claim dismissed by the district court on March 31, 2006 for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies prior to suit. Plaintiff also predicates his motion on alleged disciplinary proceedings

that occurred in 2004 and his placement this year in administrative segregation at Calipatria State

Prison.

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

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 97 Filed 08/18/06 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

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 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.

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are

well established. To prevail, the moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of 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 hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland

Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985),

quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984);

see also Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (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 either 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 irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. Id.

As a threshold matter, the principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to

preserve the court's power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See C.

Wright & A. Miller, 11 Federal Practice and Procedure, §2947 (1973). In addition to

demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary

injunction, plaintiff must show a "fair chance of success on the merits" of his claim. Sports

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 97 Filed 08/18/06 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

 The fact that injunctive relief is sought from one not a party to litigation does not 1

automatically preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) permits the

court to issue writs "necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the

usages and principles of law." The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and

preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289

(9th Cir. 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in

appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation. 

United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). 

3

Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982), quoting Benda

v. Grand Lodge of International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d

308, 315 (9th Cir. 1979). Implicit in this required showing is the notion that the relief awarded is

only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction

when the action is brought to trial. 

In addition, as a general rule this court is unable to issue an order against

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

1

The claims on which plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order is

predicated are not included in the amended complaint on which this action is proceeding. For

that reason, the claims will not be given a hearing on the merits at trial. Further, the claim does

not implicate this court's jurisdiction in a way that might justify application of the All Writs Act

to reach officials at Calipatria State Prison who are not named in the underlying litigation. See

footnote 2, supra. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order should be

denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

May 22, 2006 motion for temporary restraining order be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty 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

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 97 Filed 08/18/06 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

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The 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: August 17, 2006.

12

cohe2799.tro

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 97 Filed 08/18/06 Page 4 of 4