Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00800-10/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

FRED LEON JACKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0800 LKK EFB P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the April 19, 2006, amended complaint, he alleges that defendants

Veal, Moreno, Bick and Khoury were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by

transferring him from California Medical Facility (CMF) to Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP)

and that Veal, Moreno, Bick and Khoury transferred him in retaliation for his filing lawsuits. 

Plaintiff has moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. He seeks an

order directing Teresa A. Schwartz to transfer him back to CMF.

A temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is available to an applicant for a preliminary

injunction when the applicant may suffer irreparable injury before the court can hear the

application for a preliminary injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (motion for preliminary injunction

shall be set for hearing at earliest possible time after entry of temporary restraining order); 

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of

Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). It is an extraordinary and drastic remedy to be

granted as an exception rather than as the rule. Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 22,

28 (C.D. Cal. 1977). The issuance of a TRO is the exercise of a very far reaching power which

should never be indulged except where clearly warranted. Tymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapeprinter

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964), cited in Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 24, 33 (9th Cir.

1970). Apart from showing the necessity for immediate relief, applicants for a TRO must meet

the same standards as for a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Hunt v. National Broadcasting Co.,

Inc., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir. 1989); Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). 

The preliminary injunction standard is well established in this circuit. A preliminary

injunction will not issue unless necessary because threatened injury would impair the court’s

ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software,

Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 F.2d 863 (9th Cir.

1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a very far reaching power never to be

indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141,

143 (9th Cir. 1964). To prevail upon an application for a prohibitory preliminary injunction,

plaintiff must demonstrate either probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable

injury, or serious questions regarding the merits of his claims and a balance of hardships tipping

sharply in his favor. Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 1979). If the

balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a

likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly. Benda v. Grand

Lodge of the International Association of Machinists, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1978). The

threatened injury must be immediate. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. National

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). And since the remedy is equitable in

nature, there must be no adequate remedy at law. Stanley v. University of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313,

1320 (9th Cir. 1994). If the relief sought is mandatory, as it is here, rather than prohibitory, the

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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

balance must more clearly favor the applicant. Dahl v. HEM Pharm. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403

(9th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff alleges that on January 21, 2005, defendant Moreno threatened plaintiff with

transfer from CMF to SVSP because plaintiff had filed lawsuits. He alleges that he objected to

transfer on the ground that he has medical needs that cannot be satisfied at SVSP and his custody

level was not high enough to justify such a transfer. Nonetheless, on February 10, 2005, he was

transferred to SVSP. The day after the transfer he had a mild heart attack, after which the

attending physicians concluded that plaintiff’s medical conditions could not be properly treated

at SVSP. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants Bick and Khoury specifically refused to accept

plaintiff back at CMF. Even though officials at SVSP have on at least three separate occasions

recommended that plaintiff be returned to CMF, defendants refuse to accept plaintiff on the

ground that there are no available beds. 

The court again notes that the relief plaintiff seeks, i.e., an order directing that he be

moved from one prison to another, is mandatory. Thus, his burden is especially high. He has

failed to satisfy this burden. While he has addressed his claims, and made specific allegations

regarding the claim of retaliation, he has not shown any likelihood of success on the merits. 

Furthermore, while he has adduced evidence that SVSP officials believed that plaintiff’s medical

needs could not be met there, plaintiff’s situation has changed. Since filing his motion, plaintiff

has been transferred to High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), which his attachments suggest can

provide the care he needs. See Motion for TRO, filed April 24, 2006, Ex. B. Nothing in the

record suggests that plaintiff could be returned to SVSP any time soon. Indeed, if facility

officials have the authority to refuse a prisoner, as plaintiff’s allegations suggest, and plaintiff’s

attachments showing that SVSP officials did not want him there, it is very unlikely that he will

be transferred back to SVSP. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is not at risk of immediate,

irreparable harm. 

////

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the April 24, 2006, motion 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 20 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.” Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 17, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 56 Filed 07/17/07 Page 4 of 4