Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00171/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00171-2/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

MICHAEL HUFTILE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0171 GEB KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, civilly committed under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, is

proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint

challenges his placement in the Sacramento County Jail, and the conditions therein, for the time

period between April 5, 2001 and November 19, 2002. Plaintiff’s motions for permissive joinder

and injunctive relief, as well as defendants’ motion to dismiss, are before the court. 

I. Joinder and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

In his August 23, 2006 motion, plaintiff requests that the court join several

individuals in order to “clarify [p]laintiff’s complaint against the Sacramento County Board of

Supervisors... .” Pl.’s Mot. for Permissive Joinder. The court construes plaintiff’s motion as a

request for leave to amend, which will be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Plaintiff will be ordered to file and serve his amended complaint within thirty days of this order. 

Case 2:05-cv-00171-GEB -KJM Document 28 Filed 12/18/06 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

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days may result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Because plaintiff must be given leave to amend his complaint, defendants’ July

18, 2006 motion to dismiss will be denied as moot. 

 II. Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief preventing his transfer back into the

custody of the Sacramento County Jail and thereby allegedly preventing further violation of

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 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 Co. Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376

(9thCir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int’l, 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 threat of irreparable injury.” Id. In the

absence of a significant showing of irreparable harm, the court need not reach the issue of

likelihood of success on the merits. Id. 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief should be denied because plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate whether, and if so, when he will be remitted back into the custody of the

Sacramento County Jail. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to “demonstrate that there exists the

threat of an irreparable injury.” 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00171-GEB -KJM Document 28 Filed 12/18/06 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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 23, 2006 request for leave to amend his complaint is

granted.

2. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2005 complaint is dismissed.

3. Plaintiff shall file and serve his amended complaint within 30 days.

4. Defendants’ July 18, 2006 motion to dismiss is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s August 30, 2006 motion for

preliminary injunction be denied.

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 twenty

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 reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten 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: December 15, 2006. 

1/jg/Huftile0171.157(1)

Case 2:05-cv-00171-GEB -KJM Document 28 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 3