Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02370/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02370-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL PHILLIPE SCOTT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2370 GEB KJM P

vs.

D.K. SISTO,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 13, 2010, he moved for a temporary restraining

order, claiming that prison officials had deprived him of his property. He seeks, among other

things, the return of orthopedic supplies and prescribed vitamin supplements. He has further

alleged that removal of his legal materials left him unable to reply to respondent’s answer to his

petition. 

As to the allegation regarding his legal materials, the court granted petitioner an

extension of sixty days in which to file a traverse. See Docket No. 21. The court deemed that

length of time adequate to allow for the return of petitioner’s legal materials. The court also

ordered respondent to respond to the motion for a temporary restraining order to the extent it

1

Case 2:08-cv-02370-JKS Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 5
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

alleges the deprivation of necessary medical supplies and prescribed supplements. Id. 

Respondent has complied with the order. See Docket No. 24.

Petitioner has also filed a motion to amend his initial motion for a temporary

restraining order. See Docket No. 22. The motion to amend alleges new claims that petitioner is

being denied “medical products for high cholesterol and skin cancer.” Id. at 15. The court

construes that motion as a second motion for a temporary restraining order. 

I. Legal Standard For Immediate Injunctive Relief

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary and temporary “fix” that the

court may issue without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the

movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 

The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a fuller

hearing. See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see also E.D. Cal. L. R. (“Local Rule”) 231(a). It is

the practice of this court to construe a motion for temporary restraining order as a motion for

preliminary injunction,1 particularly when, as here, the motion has been served on the adverse

party. 

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 rights 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 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

1

 See, e.g., Aiello v. OneWest Bank, 2010 WL 406092, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (providing

that “‘[t]emporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to

preliminary injunctions’”) (citations omitted).

2

Case 2:08-cv-02370-JKS Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 5
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

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., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 (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).

II. The Parties’ Submissions

Respondent has submitted records showing that prison officials returned

petitioner’s knee and back braces, orthopedic shoes and protein tablets on May 16, 2010. See

Response, Ex. A. Respondent has also shown that while petitioner does have numerous medical

prescriptions, vitamin supplements are not among them. Id., Ex. B. 

As for the alleged deprivation of petitioner’s legal materials, petitioner has now

filed a traverse. The request for the return of legal materials for the purpose of filing a traverse

should be denied as moot. 

Finally, petitioner’s motion for leave to amend his motion for a temporary

restraining order adds for the first time his contention that he has been deprived of medical

products for high cholesterol and skin cancer. See Docket No. 22 at 15. The medical records

submitted by respondent do not reflect any prescriptions related to those conditions.

III. Conclusion

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any of the relief he presently seeks is

essential to preserve the status quo in the underlying action. More significantly, he does not

demonstrate that in the absence of preliminary relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm –

either on the merits of the instant litigation or, more fundamentally, to his person. To the

3

Case 2:08-cv-02370-JKS Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 5
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

contrary, the evidence before the court shows that petitioner has been provided the medical

supplies he requires. Furthermore, “[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury

sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v.

Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988), citing Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court,

739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Rather, a presently existing actual threat must be shown,

although the injury need not be certain to occur. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research,

Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130-31 (1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997),

cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998); Caribbean Marine, supra, 844 F.2d at 674.

The court finds that petitioner has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to

preliminary relief with regard to medical supplies or prescriptions. Petitioner has demonstrated

that he is able to file a traverse; therefore his motion for the return of his legal materials is moot. 

He has likewise not shown that he is being deprived prescribed treatment for high cholesterol or

skin cancer. For these reasons, petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and his

motion to amend his motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.

Finally, the court cautions petitioner that to the extent he seeks long-term relief

for constitutional deprivations that he believes have occurred, the instant case is not the

appropriate vehicle for asserting such a claim. “Unrelated claims against different defendants

belong in different suits[.]” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Moreover, it

appears that the matters covered by petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief would be properly

brought as claims in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, if the requirements for such an

action are met.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motions for a temporary restraining

order (Docket Nos. 19 and 22) 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 twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

Case 2:08-cv-02370-JKS Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 5
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

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 fourteen 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: July 2, 2010. 

4

scot2370.tro(3)

5

Case 2:08-cv-02370-JKS Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 5 of 5