Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00716/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00716-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARINO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ

Plaintiff,

v.

WINIFRED M. KOKOR, et al.,

Defendants.

1:16-cv-00716-MJS (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 4)

Plaintiff Marino Antonio Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights complaint. (ECF No. 1.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint is awaiting screening.

Also on May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 

prohibiting Defendant medical staff personnel at the California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California, from “denying proper and effective 

medical care and from harassing in any ways (sic) Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff also 

seeks a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to restore Plaintiff’s morphine pain 

medication.

The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before 

a preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed 

Case 1:16-cv-00716-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 06/21/16 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

27

28

2

merely to prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. 

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 65, a temporary restraining order may be granted only if “specific facts in an 

affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a 

preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 

240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), and “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary 

remedy never awarded as of right,” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 

555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 

establish 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.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). Alternatively, 

a preliminary injunction may issue where the plaintiff demonstrates the existence of 

serious questions going to the merits and the hardship balance tips sharply toward the 

plaintiff, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met. Alliance for the 

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). Under either 

formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied if the 

probability of success on the merits is low. See Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of 

Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (even if the balance of hardships tips 

decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that 

there is a fair chance of success on the merits).

An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In addition, 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00716-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 06/21/16 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

27

28

3

harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Finally, a Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary 

injunctive relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Plaintiff “must show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete 

and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or 

hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it 

must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits since at 

this stage of the proceedings the Court has not screened his complaint or determined 

that he states a cognizable claim.

Plaintiff does suggest that he is under threat of suffering an “injury in fact,” in that 

he states he continues to experience severe pain. However, there is nothing to suggest 

such harm is irreparable. In any event, absent a showing as to the other factors, this 

threat, standing alone, is insufficient to warrant injunctive relief. See Johnson v. Cal. 

State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (even if the balance of 

hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible 

minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits).

Plaintiff does not address the third or fourth elements, i.e., the balancing of 

equities and public interest concerns. First, absent a cognizable claim, there is nothing to 

tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff’s favor. Second, while the public has an interest in 

providing prisoners with constitutionally adequate medical care, the record before the 

Court does not justify the Court substituting its judgment in these matters for that of the 

prison medical staff.

In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, 

likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities in his favor, or that an injunction is 

in the public interest. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Local Rule 231; Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 

Case 1:16-cv-00716-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 06/21/16 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

27

28

4

injunction, filed on May 23, 2016, is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00716-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 4