Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02145/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02145-10/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

ROBERT “BOSTON” WOODARD,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-2145 LKK JFM (PC)

vs.

JOHN W. HAVILAND, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights

action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 5, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court agrees that the motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied, but on

different grounds.

Case 2:09-cv-02145-LKK -JFM Document 51 Filed 03/10/10 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

 Plaintiff may, however, move for preliminary injunctive relief concerning prison 1

conditions, rather than the transfer to a different prison.

 The court notes that the question of whether this court could properly enjoin a transfer to

2

his former prison because the only defendant is the warden of the former prison. The court does

not resolve the motion on this issue because even if plaintiff could enjoin the transfer, he is not

entitled to preliminary relief in that he has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm.

Nonetheless, the court notes that “when a prisoner is moved from a prison, his action will usually

become moot as to conditions at that particular facility.” Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th

Cir. 2001).

2

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy.” Winter v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (internal citation omitted). When a

court considers whether to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction, it balances “the

competing claims of injury, . . . the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the

requested relief, . . . the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of

injunction,” and plaintiff’s likelihood of success. Id. at 374, 376-77 (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v.

Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987); Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982).

Specifically, in order to succeed on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff 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.” Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374.

Here, plaintiff only seeks to enjoin defendants to transfer him from one prison to

another. He alleges that he was initially transferred in retaliation for activities protected under the

First Amendment. Plaintiff argues that the transfer “will have silenced his writing (until he settles

into his new prison home and receives his property and typewriter), and permanently eliminate[]

a source of journalistic scrutiny inside their jail.” TRO Application at 1. Plaintiff makes no other

argument as to the injury he will sustain absent a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, plaintiff

has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, and

therefore, his motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.1, 2

Case 2:09-cv-02145-LKK -JFM Document 51 Filed 03/10/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 5, 2009 motion for temporary restraining order, construed as

a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, is denied. 

DATED: March 9, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02145-LKK -JFM Document 51 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 3