Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01706/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01706-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

FRANCISCO GIL,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-01706 AWI MJS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

SECOND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

[Doc. 25]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 28, 2009.

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) The petition challenges a California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation Rules Violation Report for unauthorized possession of controlled medication,

issued January 24, 2007. (Id.) Petitioner contends that he was improperly assessed with

a 121 day credit forfeiture, and that under prevailing law he should not have been

assessed with a credit forfeiture of more than 30 days. (Id.) 

On March 18, 2010 Petitioner filed “Affidavit of Francisco J. Gil in Support of

Preliminary Injunction Motion.” (Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 11.) The affidavit was

considered as a motion for preliminary injunction and subsequently denied by order of this

Court on May 27, 2010. (Order, ECF No. 16.) Petitioner then filed a second motion for

preliminary injunction with the Court on August 12, 2010. (Second Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF

No. 25.)

Case 1:09-cv-01706-AWI-MJS Document 27 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 2
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-

Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a

preliminary injunction. The Court can issue a temporary restraining order if the moving

party has shown 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). 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 irreparable injury, the Court need not

reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate either 1) a combination

of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or 2) the

existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips

sharply in its favor. First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th

Cir.1987.)

As Petitioner is again merely re-arguing the merits of his petition by way of motion

for injunctive relief, Petitioner has failed to met his burden demonstrating entitlement to

injunctive relief. The merits of Petitioner’s petition will be resolved in due course; the

Court’s number of pending cases is substantial and the Court must act first on those cases

that have been pending the longest. However, the Court has already ordered Respondent

to file a response.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for a

preliminary injunction is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01706-AWI-MJS Document 27 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2