Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00560-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN McCLINTOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. COOPER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 18-cv-0560 JAM KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 

(ECF No. 31.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction be denied.

Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 

tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 

Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). 

An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

Case 2:18-cv-00560-DAD-KJN Document 32 Filed 01/17/20 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

See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citation omitted).

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2020, one of the defendants in this action informed 

plaintiff that the lead defendant, T. Cooper, would soon be returning to Mule Creek State Prison 

(“MCSP”), where plaintiff resides. Plaintiff alleges that although two of the eight defendants still 

work at MCSP, plaintiff has been able to continue with his responsibilities and program. Plaintiff 

alleges that when defendant Cooper returns, plaintiff anticipates that he will be unable to continue 

with his responsibilities and program. Plaintiff alleges that he experienced post traumatic stress 

disorder after hearing about defendants Cooper’s return to MCSP.

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint as to defendants Allen, 

Armenta, J. Cantu, L. Cantu, Cooper, Walker, Wheeler and Winkler as to four claims of 

retaliation, i.e., claims two, three, four and five. Plaintiff alleges that defendants retaliated against 

him for filing grievances by conducting excessive cell searches, destroying his personal property, 

tampering with his mail, wrongly housing plaintiff with an EOP inmate and charging plaintiff 

with false disciplinary charges. 

Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. 

v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988); Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 

F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). A presently existing actual threat must be shown, although the 

injury need not be certain to occur. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 

100, 130-31 (1969).

Plaintiff does not allege that defendant Cooper has returned to MCSP and started 

retaliating against him or otherwise violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s claim 

that defendant Cooper will begin retaliating against him and/or otherwise violate his 

constitutional rights following his return to MCSP is speculative. On this ground, the 

undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied without prejudice. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction (ECF No. 31) be denied without prejudice. 

////

Case 2:18-cv-00560-DAD-KJN Document 32 Filed 01/17/20 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

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 fourteen days 

after being served with 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 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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, 2020

Mcclin560.pi

Case 2:18-cv-00560-DAD-KJN Document 32 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3