Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05491/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05491-0/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

MICHAEL GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

GADSEN, BEEBE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5491 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER (Doc. 10.) 

 Michael Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 26, 2004. On August 31, 2004, Plaintiff file da

“Petition for Temporary Restraining Order.” Plaintiff seeks a restraining order to prevent cruel

and unusual punishment. Plaintiff lists several incidents covering the course of a year and

ranging from allegations that his food is being drugged to limited law library access. Plaintiff

requests a restraining order to prevent employees from retaliating or disciplining Plaintiff for his

law suit. 

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show 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

Case 1:04-cv-05491-OWW -LJO Document 19 Filed 06/23/05 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

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also

Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). 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 irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. Id.

In this case, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief to prevent any possible retaliation for

his filing of this lawsuit is purely speculative. Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable

harm. Goldies’ Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of the State of California, 739 F.2d 466, 472

(9th Cir. 1984). In addition, the Court is unable to issue any order against individuals who are

not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S.

100 (1969). In a separate order being issued concurrently with these Findings and

Recommendations, the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, with leave to amend,

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff is not

entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the Court finds that his complaint

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants

have been served with the summons and complaint. As the Court has determined that the

Complaint does not yet state a cognizable claim for relief, service of the Complaint has not been

effected and no Defendants yet appear in the action. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for

a Temporary Restraining Order be DENIED. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Case 1:04-cv-05491-OWW -LJO Document 19 Filed 06/23/05 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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05491-OWW -LJO Document 19 Filed 06/23/05 Page 3 of 3