Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499-7/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

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. CIV S-05-1499-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

M. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc.

26). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 31) will be addressed by separate order.

In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff states that, when he was transferred

from one prison to another, most of his personal property was lost. Plaintiff states that his legal

materials were included in the lost property. Plaintiff alleges facts as to a number of individuals

who are not named in this action. Plaintiff seeks an order directing prison officials to: (1) return

his property; (2) address his inmate appeals; and (3) conduct an investigation if his materials are

declared lost or destroyed. 

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 32 Filed 09/07/06 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

To the extent plaintiff asserts facts in his motion which would give rise to civil

1

rights claims, such claims must be presented in the context of a new civil rights action. 

2

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the

moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in

the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir.

1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The

two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of

irreparable injury shown. See Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. Under any formulation of the

test, however, the moving party must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury. See id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm,

the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. See id. The loss of

money, or an injury whose measure of damages can be calculated in terms of money, will not be

considered irreparable. See id. at 1334-35. 

In this case, plaintiff has not demonstrated that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury. Plaintiff has not alleged that missing legal materials will result in the loss of

any rights with respect to asserting a non-frivolous legal claim. More to the point, plaintiff has

not demonstrated that the lost materials can never be returned. In fact, implicit in plaintiff’s

motion is the concept that the materials may in fact exist and just need to be reunited with

plaintiff. In sum, while plaintiff may have suffered a separate cognizable civil rights violation

with respect to his personal property and legal materials, he has not demonstrated the irreparable

injury necessary to obtain injunctive relief.1

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 32 Filed 09/07/06 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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief (Doc. 26) 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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: September 5, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 32 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 3