Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02095/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02095-0/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

27

28

- 1 - 05CV2095

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW WARREN, 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05CV2095-LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Sheriff; CAPT.

DENNIS RUNYEN, Chief, San Diego

County Detention Services; CAPT.

CAMPBELL (CJ); LT. SCOTT (CJ); LT.

ELIVEN (CJ); SGT. P. LACHAPPELL

(CJ); SGT. LEWIS (CJ); SGT. GLOVER,

Classification; DEP. MCCRACKEN (CJ);

CAPT. J. INGRASSIA (GBDF); LT.

EVENS (GBDF); SGT. BREWER

(GBDF); SGT. COYNE (CGDF); CORP.

DICKERSON (GBDF); DEP. BARRERA

(GBDF); DEP. SOBJAW (GBDF); DEP.

BORDEN (GBDF); LT. WILLIAM

KEMERY (IAD); SAN DIEGO COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

JOHN/JANE DOES 20-50,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) currently in custody at Coalinga State

Hospital, and is proceeding pro se. On August 10, 2006, Plaintiff moved for a preliminary

injunction forbidding Defendants from “transporting or housing [him] until final adjudication

of the issues in this case.” (Motion at 2.) Plaintiff further asks the Court to order that, when

he is in San Diego County, he be housed in a San Diego County Department of Mental

Health secure facility. (Id.) Plaintiff is concerned that if he is required to return to San Diego

Case 3:05-cv-02095-LAB-NLS Document 39 Filed 11/02/06 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

27

28

- 2 - 05CV2095

County for civil commitment proceedings, he may be housed in the San Diego County Jail,

where he believes he may be subject to retaliation and where he alleges he will not be able

to receive the mental health care he needs, as provided under California law. (Id.)

Defendants filed their opposition on September 12, 2006, including a declaration

regarding County practices for housing SVPs. Plaintiff did not reply to their opposition. 

I. DISCUSSION

Two alternate tests are used to determine whether preliminary injunctive relief is

appropriate.

Under the traditional test, a plaintiff must show: (1) a strong likelihood of

success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if

preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the

plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). The

alternative test requires that a plaintiff demonstrate either a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his

favor. These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in

which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of

success decreases. They are not separate tests but rather outer reaches of

a single continuum.

Ranchers Cattleman Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America v. U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture, 415 F.3d 1078, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks

omitted). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint lacks factual specifics.

Plaintiff does not state when he might be sent to San Diego County for a civil commitment

hearing. Although Plaintiff contends he may be subject to retaliation, possibly in connection

with his status as a SVP, he does not explain why the usual security precautions in place at

the San Diego County Jail would be inadequate. Plaintiff also does not explain the nature

of the care and treatment he needs that he believes he would be denied if he were sent to

the San Diego County Jail.

Applying the traditional test, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s generalized motion does

not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits. He speculates that he will

Case 3:05-cv-02095-LAB-NLS Document 39 Filed 11/02/06 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

27

28

- 3 - 05CV2095

suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied, but does not demonstrate that this is a real

possibility. The Court also finds that while Plaintiff might face hardships if he were sent to

the San Diego County Jail, he has not shown that he would. Defendants’ declaration shows

that, as a sexually violent predator, Plaintiff would be housed at the George Bailey Detention

Facility, where he would benefit from protection and medical care. Granting the preliminary

injunction would clearly create practical difficulties for the County of San Diego. The final

prong of the traditional test, the public interest, does not favor granting the injunction, which

would benefit only Plaintiff.

Applying the alternative test using the same analysis of the probability of success on

the merits, the possibility of irreparable harm, and the balance of hardships, the Court

reaches the same conclusion. The possibility that Plaintiff will be sent to the George Bailey

Detention Facility does not raise serious questions in the Court’s mind.

II. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court holds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of persuasion.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.

DATED: November 2, 2006

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02095-LAB-NLS Document 39 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 3