Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02023/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02023-6/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

CHRISTOPHER JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2023 WBS GGH P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Introduction

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 12, 2007, this court granted defendants, who had just

filed waivers of service on September 27, 2007, an extension of time, until November 23, 2007,

to file their responsive pleading to plaintiff’s second amended complaint. On October 17, 2007,

plaintiff filed a document, entitled in part: “Immediate Relief Requested[;] Emergency request

for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order prohibiting harassment reprisals, and

constitutional violations.”

TRO

 The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo

pending a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a

Case 2:06-cv-02023-WBS -GGH Document 26 Filed 10/29/07 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

temporary restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the

hearing on a preliminary injunction. It is apparent, however, that requests for temporary

restraining orders which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general

standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v.

Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch.

Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting);

Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the

emphasis of the court is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the

merits of a controversy are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice. 

Preliminary Injunction Standard

 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

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.

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).

The gravamen of plaintiff’s underlying complaint is an alleged lack of sanitation 

in the prison kitchen and in food handling. By his request for preliminary injunction, plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02023-WBS -GGH Document 26 Filed 10/29/07 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

complains at some length of having been kept in a filthy holding cell for some thirty hours, after

he had submitted a cell move slip to a housing officer for a compatible cellmate but was

subsequently told that he would be moving in with an unknown inmate. Plaintiff provides no

basis for preliminary injunctive relief in this matter because he states that he has subsequently

been returned to a regular cell and allowed to have a cellmate with which he is compatible. 

Motion, p. 5.

Plaintiff also seeks emergency relief with respect to job placement and the

processing of his inmate grievances. Plaintiff simply does not make a significant showing of

possible irreparable harm sufficient to warrant any form of emergency relief with his requests. 

To the extent that plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief to preclude prison officials from

violating his constitutional rights, they are already legally obligated to refrain from such

violations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that October 17, 2007, request

for a temporary restraining order/emergency preliminary injunction 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 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: 10/29/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jack2023.dny

Case 2:06-cv-02023-WBS -GGH Document 26 Filed 10/29/07 Page 3 of 3