Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02097/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02097-1/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

CLARENCE KNIGHT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-2097 DFL GGH P

vs.

P. PRUDHOMME, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for trial on July 11, 2005. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s May 4, 2005, motion for injunctive relief. After carefully reviewing the record, the

court recommends that the motion be denied.

In his motion, plaintiff requests that he not be housed at California State PrisonSacramento (CSP-Sac) during his trial because that is the prison where defendants are located. 

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff speculates that

defendants will improperly order him housed in administrative segregation (ad seg) if he is sent

to CSP-Sac. Plaintiff also speculates that defendants may deprive him of pain medication, his

medical pillow and orthopedic mattress if he is housed at CSP-Sac. Plaintiff also speculates that

defendants will not permit him to shave and groom during his trial. 

Case 2:00-cv-02097-DFL-GGH Document 58 Filed 06/10/05 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

2

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are

well established. To prevail in this circuit, the moving party must satisfy one of two tests. Under

the first test, movant must show 1) there will be irreparable damage suffered if injunctive relief is

not granted; 2) movant will probably prevail on the merits; 3) when equities are balanced, nonmovant will not suffer more harm than movant is helped by the injunction; and 4) granting the

injunction is in the public interest. Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670,

674-5 (9th Cir.1984). In the alternative, a preliminary injunction can be issued if the moving

party can show either a combination of probability of success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in

the movant’s favor. Id. at p. 675. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692,

700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th

Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point

being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any

formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

In the last part of the alternative test, even should the balance of hardships tip

decidedly in the movant’s favor, the moving party must show “as an irreducible minimum that

there is a fair chance of success on the merits.” Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 740

F.2d at 675. 

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). 

Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm. See Caribbean Marine

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

Case 2:00-cv-02097-DFL-GGH Document 58 Filed 06/10/05 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

3

Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). 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 Servs. Co., 844 F.2d at 674.

Plaintiff’s concerns regarding improper conduct by defendants if he is housed at

CSP-Sac during trial are speculative. For that reason, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief should be denied. If plaintiff is subject to the conditions described above during

his trial, he may bring the matter to the attention of Judge Levi.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s May 4, 2005, motion for a

preliminary injunction 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 twenty

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten 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: 6/9/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

kn2097.pi

Case 2:00-cv-02097-DFL-GGH Document 58 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3