Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00102/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00102-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGGIE L. McCOY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL SCHULTZ, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05 - 0102 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

MOTIONS TO AMEND 

[Docs. 10, 13, 15]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the court is Petitioner’s motion for a

temporary restraining order filed April 1, 2005, and his two subsequent motions to amend. 

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.

Case 1:05-cv-00102-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 03/03/06 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

1985), quoting Apple 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 the present case, Petitioner seeks an order enjoining Respondent from the

following: 1) classifying Petitioner “as a sex offender considered for sexual deviant behavior

program for public safety factor;” 2) transferring Petitioner “to a U.S.P. based on use of

sexually oriented information or otherwise;” 3) denying Petitioner “commissary phone

privileges and visiting privileges;” 4) sexual discrimination against Petitioner by staff; 5)

placing Petitioner in a segregated housing unit in retaliation for his complaints; and 6)

transferring Petition “while this action is pending except transferring him to MDC California

or Terminal Island with disciplinary records sealed by court order.”

In seeking to have the court enjoin these actions by Respondent, Petitioner essentially

asks the court to temporarily award the an extension of the relief he seeks in his petition, in

which he challenges the outcome of a prison disciplinary proceeding. After reviewing the

motion, the court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated neither a likelihood of success on the

merits of his petition, nor the existence of serious questions going to the merits. The court

concludes, therefore, that Petitioner has not made the requisite showing for the temporary

injunctive relief sought.

On May 2, 2005, and again on May 23, 2005, Petitioner filed motions to amend or

supplement his motion for a temporary restraining order. Because the court is denying the

underlying motion for a temporary restraining order, the motions to amend must be denied

also.

Case 1:05-cv-00102-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 03/03/06 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

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED;

2) Petitioner’s motions to amend or supplement his motion for a temporary restraining

order are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00102-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 3