Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01712-9/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

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1712 FCD DAD P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief 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 demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 54 Filed 05/01/07 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

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. Finally, 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).

Here, plaintiff seeks an order to prohibit “defendants, their officers, servants,

employees, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them . . . from threatening

plaintiff with punishment, penalty, or other reprisals; harassing plaintiff; or imposing

punishment, penalty, or other reprisals because of plaintiff’s exercise of his rights under the First

Amendment or his pursuit of legal remedies.” (Mot. at 18.) Plaintiff’s supporting allegations

concern events which occurred several years ago and serve as the basis of his pending lawsuit. 

There are several defects with plaintiff’s motion. First, the relief plaintiff seeks is

overly broad and vague. Second, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable

harm if the requested relief is not granted. His allegations concern events that occurred several

years ago and there is no evidence that he faces injury that is real, rather than fancied or

imagined. Third, in order to obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff must demonstrate that he has

exhausted the prison’s inmate grievance system. See, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847

(1994) (“When a prison inmate seeks injunctive relief, a court need not ignore the inmate's

failure to take advantage of adequate prison procedures, and an inmate who needlessly bypasses

such procedures may properly be compelled to pursue them.”). As noted above, several of

plaintiff’s allegations are the basis of this action. On January 17, 2007, defendants filed a motion

to dismiss this action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

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

preliminary injunction, filed on April 25, 2007, be denied without prejudice.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 54 Filed 05/01/07 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

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 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: April 30, 2007.

DAD:4

mana1712.pi

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 54 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 3