Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02706/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02706-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GUADALUPE VILLANUEVA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2706 LKK EFB P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His

complaint, filed November 29, 1996, alleges inadequate medical care. Also on November 29,

2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary because threatened injury would

impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v.

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871

F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a very far reaching

power never to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter,

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). To prevail upon an application for a prohibitory 

preliminary injunction, plaintiff must demonstrate either probable success on the merits and the 

possibility of irreparable injury, or serious questions regarding the merits of his claims and a 

Case 2:06-cv-02706-LKK -KJN Document 16 Filed 03/08/07 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

2

balance of hardships tipping sharply in his favor. Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130,

1134 (9th Cir. 1979). If the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff

need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less

decidedly. Benda v. Grand Lodge of the International Association of Machinists, 584 F.2d 308,

315 (9th Cir. 1978). The threatened injury must be immediate. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum

Comm'n v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). And since the

remedy is equitable in nature, there must be no adequate remedy at law. Stanley v. University of

S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994). If the relief sought is mandatory rather than

prohibitory, the balance must more clearly favor the applicant. Dahl v. HEM Pharm. Corp., 7

F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff appears to seek an order directing all defendants to “provide reasonable medical

treatment.” Motion at Unnumbered Page 5. While he refers to dental problems, a thigh

deformity, knee abnormalities and a vision impairment, he does not state with specificity what

treatment he has been denied and what treatment he wants the court to order. Id. at 3, 4. 

Furthermore, the court has reviewed his complaint on the initial screening, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A , and found that it fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated either a likelihood of success on the merits of that

serious questions have been raised.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s November 29, 2006, motion

for injunctive relief 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 20 days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Failure to file objections within the

////

Case 2:06-cv-02706-LKK -KJN Document 16 Filed 03/08/07 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: March 7, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02706-LKK -KJN Document 16 Filed 03/08/07 Page 3 of 3