Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600-10/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

THOMAS CLINTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1600 LKK CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302(b)(21). Before the court is plaintiff’s July 27, 2006

motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff requests that this court direct Warden John Marshall to

make arrangements for plaintiff upon his release from prison which ensure that plaintiff is safe.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 42 Filed 08/08/06 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

I. Background

Plaintiff brought this action alleging several violations of his civil rights stemming

from a prison rape. Plaintiff reminds the court in his motion for injunctive relief that he is an

“effeminate, white, prison homosexual, and a prison rape survivor.” Plaintiff is concerned that he

cannot be placed “just anywhere” after his release from prison and contends that the warden must

make special arrangements for plaintiff’s post-release housing to ensure that plaintiff is safe. 

II. Standard for Injunctive Relief 

In general, injunctive relief is appropriate if a plaintiff demonstrates either (1) a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) the

existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardship tips sharply in

plaintiff's favor. See Sony Computer Entertainment Am., Inc. v. Bleem, LLC, 214 F.3d 1022,

1025 (9th Cir.2000); Prudential Real Estate Affiliates v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 874 (9th

Cir.2000). “These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required

degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Prudential Real

Estate, 204 F.3d at 874. 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. See Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). 

III. Discussion

The court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s frustration in finding safe housing upon his

release. However, federal courts must afford deference to the appropriate state prison authorities

in matters of prison administration, and therefore are required to balance the state's interests

against the need to protect an inmate's constitutional rights. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,

84-85 (1987) ( “Prison administration is AAA a task that has been committed to the responsibility of

AAA [the legislative and executive] branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of

judicial restraint.”). The undersigned finds that the injunctive relief requested by plaintiff will

adversely impact the prison system because it would compel prison officials to take

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 42 Filed 08/08/06 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

action—making arrangements for plaintiff upon his release from prison, that goes beyond the

requirements of applicable state administrative rules. In short, a motion for injunctive relief is not

the proper mechanism for plaintiff to challenge the prison’s failure to make suitable

accommodations for at-risk prisoners upon release. 

Additionally, plaintiff asks that the court direct Warden John Marshall to make

proper arrangements for plaintiff upon his relief. To the extent that plaintiff is seeking relief

against Warden Marshall, plaintiff has filed a request for injunctive relief against an individual

who is not named as a defendant in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief (doc. 40) 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: August 8, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 42 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 3