Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00864/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00864-9/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

ANTONIO KEATON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0864 GEB CMK P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302(b)(21). Currently before the court is plaintiff’s

motion for a temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s request for a

temporary restraining order is insufficient under E.D. Cal. Local Rule 65-231(c). Therefore, the

request will be construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction ordering that plaintiff be transferred from

High Desert State Prison to another prison in the California State Prison System. In support of

his motion, plaintiff states that officials at High Desert State Prison are “making threats on

plaintiff’s life, violating his (ADA) rights not giving much needed medical treatment, and

ongoing reprisals.” (Pl.’s Mot. T.R.O. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he was transferred to High

Case 2:03-cv-00864-GEB -CMK Document 50 Filed 01/18/06 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

A “vision impaired vest” is apparently a vest worn by vision impaired inmates in 1

correctional facilities. 

2

Desert State Prison from the Medical Facility in Vacaville where he underwent brain surgery. 

Plaintiff believed that he would be transferred to Corcoran State Prison where he could receive

the “best treatments” but, instead, was sent to High Desert State Prison where is “getting none of

the follow-up-treatments that [he] need most.” (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff alleges that he has been

called dumb, told that he was on prison officials’ hit list, put in the hole and had his vision

impaired vest and his glasses taken from him. (Id.) 1

In general, a preliminary injunction is appropriate if a plaintiff demonstrates 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 the balance of hardship tips sharply

in plaintiff's favor. See Sony Computer Entertainment Am., Inc. v. Bleem, LLC, 214 F.3d 1022,

1025 (9th Cir.2000); Prudential Real Estate Affiliates v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 874 (9th

Cir.2000). “These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required

degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Prudential Real

Estate, 204 F.3d at 874. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. See Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Although the events that plaintiff describes are unpleasant, the undersigned finds

that plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he has sustained or is in immediate

danger of sustaining injuries that would justify granting the relief requested. See Sony Computer

Equipment Am, Inc., 214 F.3d at 1025. Additionally, federal courts must afford deference to the

appropriate state prison authorities in matters of prison administration, and therefore are required

to balance the state's interests against the need to protect an inmate's constitutional rights. See

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987) ( “Prison administration is AAA a task that has been

committed to the responsibility of AAA [the legislative and executive] branches, and separation of

Case 2:03-cv-00864-GEB -CMK Document 50 Filed 01/18/06 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

3

powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint.”). The undersigned finds that the

 injunctive relief requested by plaintiff will adversely impact the prison administration system

because it would compel state officials to take action–transferring plaintiff, that go beyond the

requirements of the applicable state administrative rules. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief (doc. 28) 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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: January 17, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00864-GEB -CMK Document 50 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 3