Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01721/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01721-3/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 W. AUGUST, No. CIV S-06-1721-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOHN DOVEY, 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 are plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs.

10 & 14) filed October 3, 2006, and October 20, 2006. In his motions, plaintiff seeks an order

preventing defendants from transferring him to another prison during the pendency of this action.

 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

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 15 Filed 11/16/06 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

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. 

The standard for a temporary restraining order is essentially the same. The

purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a more

complete hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a temporary

restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the hearing on

a preliminary injunction. It is apparent however, that requests for temporary restraining orders

are governed by the same general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. 

See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist,

J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir.

1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368

(S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the emphasis of the court is directed to irreparable harm and the

balance of hardships because the merits of a controversy are often difficult to ascertain and

adjudicate on short notice.

As outlined above, to obtain injunctive relief plaintiff must demonstrate a

significant threat of irreparable injury. In this case, plaintiff has not made such a showing. 

Specifically, plaintiff does not state how his transfer to another prison will cause him any injury. 

Plaintiff will still be able to litigate this action regardless of where he is incarcerated. Moreover,

prisoners do not have a liberty interest in avoiding being transferred to another prison. See Olim

v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983). Finally, while prisoners generally may not be

transferred in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights, see Pratt v. Rowland, 65

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 15 Filed 11/16/06 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

F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995), plaintiff has not yet been transferred. And, even if plaintiff is later

transferred for a retaliatory purpose, there would still be no irreparable injury because such a

transfer would give rise to a separate civil rights action for damages. 

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

injunctive relief (Docs. 10 & 14) 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 20 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: November 16, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 15 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 3