Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01848-5/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

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 10-cv-1848 MCE KJN P

vs.

WARDEN SALINAS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action

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

filed October 12, 2010. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this motion

be denied.

Legal Standard for Injunctive Relief

“The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to

demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.

2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

A Ninth Circuit panel has found that post-Winter, this circuit’s sliding scale

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 25 Filed 10/29/10 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

 On September 7, 2010, the claims against the remaining defendants were dismissed 1

with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint. Instead, plaintiff chose

to proceed with the claims found colorable against defendants Vertinelli, Hall and Colon. 

2

approach or “serious questions” test survives “when applied as part of the four-element Winter

test.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 2010 WL 3665149, at * 5 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2010). 

“In other words, ‘serious questions going to the merits,’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply

toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the

Winter test are also met.” Id.

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Discussion

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed August 24, 2010, as to

defendants Vertinelli, Hall and Colon. The pending motion for injunctive relief is, basically, a 1

restatement of the claims contained in the amended complaint, including those that were

dismissed. Plaintiff may not seek injunctive relief regarding the claims that have been dismissed. 

Accordingly, the undersigned will only consider the motion for injunctive relief to the extent it

concerns the claims on which this action is proceeding.

As in the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that following his arrival at the

Deuel Vocational Institution (“DVI”), defendant Vertinelli placed him in a lock-up unit from

May 5, 2010, to June 9, 2010. As in the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Hall

retaliated against him for his legal activities. In particular, plaintiff alleges that from May 8,

2010, to May 26, 2010, defendant Hall denied plaintiff access to daily showers. Plaintiff alleges

that from May 5, 2010, to June 26, 2010, defendant Hall denied plaintiff access to personal mail. 

As in the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that on June 25, 2010, defendant Colon slammed a

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 25 Filed 10/29/10 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

cell door on plaintiff. 

The misconduct plaintiff complains of in the pending motion for injunctive relief

occurred in May 2010 and June 2010. Plaintiff does not allege that he has been subjected to any

more recent or ongoing harassment by these defendants. Under these circumstances, the

undersigned finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in

the absence of injunctive relief. On this ground, the motion for injunctive relief should be

denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 22) 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 twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: October 28, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

tur1848.pi

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 25 Filed 10/29/10 Page 3 of 3