Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00803/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00803-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL TIWANA, CASE NO. CV-F-06-0803 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S

vs. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER BE DENIED

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

[Doc. 3]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for temporary

restraining order, filed June 23, 2006. Plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting defendants from enforcing

the disciplinary measures imposed after he was found guilty at his disciplinary hearing, including his

time credit loss. 

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

so heavily favorsthe 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. 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 hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937

(9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable

Case 1:06-cv-00803-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 02/26/07 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

27

28

2

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 of the merits,

or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

“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.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis

added). In a separate order issued concurrently with this Findings and Recommendations, the court

recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as

the court finds that his complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and

the named defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

temporary restraining order 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 twenty (20) 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: February 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00803-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2