Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00149-6/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

KENNETH A. SIERRA,

Plaintiff, CV F 07 0149 LJO WMW PC 

vs. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION RE MOTION 

 FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DOC 18)

J. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action against correctional

officials. The claims in this case relate to Plaintiff’s medical care. Plaintiff claims that

Defendants are subjecting him to inadequate medical care such that it is a violation of the Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The motion, like the first

amended complaint, lists various medical grievances. The motion fails to seek any specific order

from the Court. Further, there is no operative pleading in this case. The first amended complaint

has been dismissed with leave to amend.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the balance of

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

Case 1:07-cv-00149-LJO-GSA Document 26 Filed 03/11/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in its favor.”

Arcamuzi v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9 Cir. 1987). Under either approach

th

the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction

should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare

minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success on the merits, or questions

serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

There is no operative pleading in this case. The Court finds that Plaintiff has therefore

failed to show a chance of success on the merits.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten 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. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00149-LJO-GSA Document 26 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 2