Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-3/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

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-GSA PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Docs. 16-18)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California tort law. On January 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed

a motion seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants (1) from threatening Plaintiff

or using force against him, and (2) from coming within one hundred feet of him or his property; and

mandating that the defendants (3) take polygraph examinations, (4) transfer him out of Unit 2L on

4A Facility, and (5) release him to federal or county custody, to a private facility, or on house arrest

with a leg monitor. Defendants Adams, David, Melo, Martinez, Ruiz, Miranda, Mendoza, and

Masiel did not file a response. 

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1)

a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 20 Filed 02/11/09 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

questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air

Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questionsserious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold

requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.”

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983) (citations omitted);

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). “Abstract injury is not enough.”

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 1665. “[P]laintiff must show that he has sustained or is

immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct

and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The key issue is whether the plaintiff is ‘likely to

suffer future injury.’” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126 (quoting Lyons at 105, 1667). When a government

agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal

affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001)(quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state agency is involved, these considerations

are, in anything, strengthened because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128. “[A]ny

injunctive relief awarded must avoid unnecessary disruption to the state agency’s ‘normal course of

proceeding.’” Id. at 1128 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 669, 679

(1974)). 

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

///

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 20 Filed 02/11/09 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

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff’s claims in this action arise from events which occurred at California State PrisonCorcoran in 2007. (Doc. 1, Comp.) Plaintiff alleges that excessive physical force was used against

him on January 22, 2007, January 23, 2007, and February 11, 2007, and that he was subjected to

unconstitutional conditions of confinement while on management cell status for several weeks in

January and February of 2007. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges retaliation and various other tort claims

arising from these events. (Id.) Because Plaintiff’s claims arise from past events, there is no actual

case or controversy before the Court with respect to Plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement.

Further, the relief sought by Plaintiff in his motion is not narrowly tailored to go no further than

correcting the past violation of his rights. For these reasons, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the

orders sought by Plaintiff and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that his motion be DENIED. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 20 Filed 02/11/09 Page 3 of 3