Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00250-AWI-GBC (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DENYING REQUEST

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 14)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff George K. Colbert (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims arise from events

that occurred while Plaintiff was at the California Correctional Institute at Tehachapi, California. 

(Doc. 1). Plaintiff is currentlyhoused at California State Prison, Sacramento, in Represa, California. 

(Doc. 13). On January 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief to provide emergency

medical treatment to prevent Plaintiff from becoming paralyzed. (Doc. 14). 

II. Preliminary Injunction

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of

right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376

(2008)(citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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

1

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/01/11 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

in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded

upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation

omitted)(emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[T]o the extent that our

cases have suggested a lesser standard, they are no longer controlling, or even viable.”

McDermott v. Ampersand Pub., LLC, 593 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2010), quoting Am. Trucking

Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The moving party

has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Environmental Council of Sacramento

v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).

‘A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

before the court.’ Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Zepeda

v. U.S. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). The claims in this action arise from Plaintiff’s past

conditions of confinement at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi and the court does

not have jurisdiction in this action over prison officials at California State Prison, Sacramento. Thus,

the court cannot issue an order remedying Plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement there. Price

v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Plaintiff has not met his burden as the moving party. “[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) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A mandatory

preliminary injunction, such as that sought by plaintiff in the instant motion, “is subject to

heightened scrutiny and should not be issued unless the facts and the law clearly favor the

moving party.” Dahl v. Hem Pharmaceuticals Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993). As

the moving party, it is Plaintiff who bears the burden. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory

allegations in his motion for injunctive relief does not meet Plaintiff’s burden to prevail on a motion

for preliminary injunctive relief. 

///

///

2

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/01/11 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

III. Conclusion and Reccomendations

Therefore, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief,

filed January 18, 2011, 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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2011 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/01/11 Page 3 of 3