Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00805/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00805-0/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

OTIS LEE RODGERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0805 DFL CMK 

vs.

D. SHARPE, et al., 

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who has filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants

from destroying or damaging plaintiff’s literary works. 

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief such as a

restraining order, 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. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any formulation of the test, plaintiff must

Case 2:05-cv-00805-DFL-CMK Document 6 Filed 06/24/05 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

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” 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. Id.

Here, plaintiff expects this court to order a temporary restraining order on the

mere allegation that his manuscript was taken. Plaintiff has not demonstrated he will succeed on

the merits or be injured. Plaintiff does not show that serious questions are raised or that he will

suffer hardship if the temporary restraining order. 

Instead, plaintiff alleges that his manuscript was taken during lock down. Plaintiff

also admits he has not exhausted his claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order is DENIED.

DATED: June 23, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00805-DFL-CMK Document 6 Filed 06/24/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00805-DFL-CMK Document 6 Filed 06/24/05 Page 3 of 3