Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248-14/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

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Horace Bell is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the filing and processing of his 

administrative remedy. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary 

injunction. 

I.

DISCUSSION

A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that 

would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. “A preliminary injunction 

... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for preserving the status quo and 

preventing the irreparable loss of right before judgment.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 

Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far 

HORACE BELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S HEBERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL THE FILING AND PROCESSING OF 

HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY

[ECF No. 58]

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 60 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

27

28

reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. V. Tapeprinter, 

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “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., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). 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 has not met his burden of proving that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Nor 

has Plaintiff shown that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. Although 

Plaintiff requests the Court order prison officials to process a grievance, there is no discernable 

irreparable injury to him if he is unable to process such grievance. Plaintiff has also not demonstrated 

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. As Plaintiff 

has failed to meet his burden of proving that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction, his motion must 

be denied. 

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time //

//

//

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 60 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 60 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 3