Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02302/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02302-2/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

CLARENCE ROBERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. SINGH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2302 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff filed a document 

entitled, “Plaintiff Clarence Roberson now targeted retaliation by CSP-SAC [California State 

Prison, Sacramento] for filing a suit on Stockton CHCF [California Health Care Facility] mental 

health facility.” (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff claims that since his transfer to CSP-SAC, his property 

and incoming mail have been taken, and he’s been issued an allegedly false rules violation report. 

Plaintiff seeks an emergency transfer and payment of $5,000 in compensatory damages for stress. 

The undersigned construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion for injunctive relief.

The party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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.” Winter v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 

1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief 

Case 2:14-cv-02302-WBS-KJN Document 20 Filed 04/28/15 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

hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean 

Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff 

demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the 

public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits 

of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for 

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious 

questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after 

Winter).

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 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). As noted above, 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 

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

omitted). Implicit in this required showing is 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 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). 

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).

Here, plaintiff’s claims regarding prison staff at CSP-SAC are unrelated to the claims on 

which this action is proceeding, i.e., plaintiff’s claims that on August 31, 2014, while he was 

housed at CHCF, defendants Singh and Cotter used excessive force on plaintiff, and the 

remaining named defendants failed to take steps to prevent or stop them. Because the grounds of 

Case 2:14-cv-02302-WBS-KJN Document 20 Filed 04/28/15 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

plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief are unrelated to the merits of the instant action, the court is 

unable to address plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief because such claims will not be heard on 

the merits in the instant action. Moreover, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who 

are not named as defendants herein. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 

directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 19) 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 

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: April 28, 2015

/robe2302.pi

Case 2:14-cv-02302-WBS-KJN Document 20 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 3