Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00326/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00326-5/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

SY LEE CASTLE, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

C. CHEN, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00326-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

(ECF No. 29) 

Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds against 

Defendant Chen on claims of inadequate medical care and retaliation. The case is in the 

discovery phase. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice that Plaintiff proceeds only 

against Defendant Chen and that Plaintiff has been separated from his legal property. 

Plaintiff points out that the Court’s recent discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 

24) captions Defendants “C. Chen et al.” Plaintiff seeks notice that this matter proceeds 

only against Defendant Chen. The Court takes notice this action proceeds only against 

Defendant C. Chen.1(ECF No 12.) 

Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice that he has been transferred to 

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of its own records. Fed.R.Civ.P. 201; United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 

119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:12-cv-00326-LJO-MJS Document 30 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 2
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

AdSeg and thus separated from his legal property shall be denied. Plaintiff’s alleged 

separation from his legal property is not a fact susceptible of judicial notice. Fed. R. Evid. 

201(b). If Plaintiff is seeking recovery of his legal property as injunctive relief, he has not 

shown the existence of any of the criteria for such relief, i.e., (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 Plaintiff’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); see City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show 

“real and immediate” threat of injury). Plaintiff’s motion does not demonstrate likelihood of 

success on the merits or relative hardship he might suffer absent injunctive relief. Nothing 

before the Court suggests a present need for and entitlement to injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice is 

GRANTED IN PART as to this matter proceeding only against Defendant C. Chen, and 

DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s alleged separation from his legal property without 

prejudice to any future request for injunctive relief thereon. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

Case 1:12-cv-00326-LJO-MJS Document 30 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 2