Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01527/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01527-3/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

WILLIAM ROUSER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1527 LKK GGH P

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 1, 2006, motion for injunctive

relief. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have threatened to transfer him away from Mule Creek

State Prison (MCSP) in retaliation for his legal activities concerning the instant action.

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

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood 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. 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 1375. “Under

Case 2:06-cv-01527-LKK -GGH Document 12 Filed 02/23/07 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

 Plaintiff also states that two other inmates who were considered Pagan leaders were 1

transferred. Plaintiff Rouser is the only plaintiff in this action. Therefore, he may not represent

other inmates in this action. 

2

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.

On February 8, 2007, the court issued an order observing that plaintiff had filed

no pleadings since August 2006 indicating that his transfer was imminent or that he actually had

been transferred. The court ordered plaintiff to inform the court within ten days whether he

desired to pursue his motion for injunctive relief.

On February 16, 2007, plaintiff filed a response to the February 8, 2007, order. 

Plaintiff states that he was “pulled off” the transfer list for mental health reasons. Based on this

representation, the court does not find that plaintiff faces an immediate threat of irreparable

harm. Accordingly, the motion for injunctive relief should be denied.1

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s August 1, 2006, motion for

injunctive relief 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, 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).

DATED: 2/22/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

rou1527.pi

Case 2:06-cv-01527-LKK -GGH Document 12 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2