Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01256/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01256-4/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

HAROLD WALKER,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES TILTON,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01256 AWI DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[Docs. 21, 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 August 30, 2007. 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on February 28, 2008, and Petitioner filed a traverse

on March 10, 2008. (Court Docs. 26, 27.) 

On January 22, 2008, and February 15, 2008, respectively, Petitioner filed a motions for

injunctive relief. (Court Docs. 21, 25.) In both motions, Petitioner appears to be arguing the

merits of his underlying petition. In his January 22, 2008, motion, Petitioner states in vague and

conclusory terms and out of context of the substance of the motion, that he was denied access to

the law library. 

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

restraining order. 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

Case 1:07-cv-01256-WWS Document 28 Filed 03/28/08 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

(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 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, as the Court’s number

of pending cases is substantial and the Court must act first on those cases that have been pending

the longest. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motions for

injunctive relief be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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, any party 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.” 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

Case 1:07-cv-01256-WWS Document 28 Filed 03/28/08 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

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: March 27, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01256-WWS Document 28 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 3