Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01108/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01108-13/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 The court has addressed plaintiff’s need for access to his medical file by separate order. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE EICHLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1108 GEB JFM P

vs.

CDC OFFICER SHERBIN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed July

14, 2005. Plaintiff’s claims arose at New Folsom State Prison and this action is proceeding

against two defendants employed at that institution. On June 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion

for a preliminary injunction. In this motion, plaintiff raises numerous claims concerning

conditions of confinement at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, where he is presently housed. He 1

also seeks a court order attaching liens or levies upon the named defendants herein for a sum

sufficient to cover damages in the instant action. Defendant Mercy Hospital has filed an

opposition.

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 106 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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. 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.

As a threshold matter, the principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to

preserve the court's power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See C.

Wright & A. Miller, 11 Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (1973). In addition to

demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary

injunction, plaintiff must show a "fair chance of success on the merits" of his claim. Sports

Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982), quoting Benda

v. Grand Lodge of International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d

308, 315 (9th Cir. 1979). Implicit in this required showing is the notion that the relief awarded is

only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction

when the action is brought to trial. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 106 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 4
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

 The fact that injunctive relief is sought from one not a party to litigation does not 2

automatically preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) permits the

court to issue writs "necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the

usages and principles of law." The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and

preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289

(9th Cir. 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in

appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation. 

United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). 

3

In addition, as a general rule this court is unable to issue an order against

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

2

Most of the claims on which plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is

predicated are not included in the third amended complaint on which this action is proceeding. 

For that reason, the claims will not be given a hearing on the merits at trial. Further, the claims

do not implicate this court's jurisdiction in a way that might justify application of the All Writs

Act to reach officials at Mule Creek State Prison who are not named in the underlying litigation. 

See footnote 1, supra. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief

should be denied.

Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated that an order attaching liens or levies

upon the named defendants herein for a sum sufficient to cover damages in the instant action is

necessary. First, plaintiff has not shown a probability that plaintiff will succeed on the merits. 

Second, plaintiff has not provided any evidence that suggests defendants will be unable to pay

damages if damages are ultimately awarded to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion as to the named

defendants should also be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

June 12, 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

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

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 106 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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: August 29, 2006.

/001

eich1108.pi

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 106 Filed 08/30/06 Page 4 of 4