Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05004/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05004-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE B. ELDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. BAUGHMAN,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-5004 OWW SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Docs. 21 and 27)

Plaintiff George B. Elder (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 28, 2005, plaintiff filed

what the court construes to be a motion seeking a preliminary injunction mandating that plaintiff be

provided with a protein drink or other substitute, a multi-vitamin, prescription glasses, interferonribavirin combination therapy, and an examination by a hepatologist or a gastroenterologist; and

mandating that plaintiff’s paperwork be returned to him. (Doc. 21.) On June 8, 2005, plaintiff filed

what the court construes to be a motion seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from

selling or transferring anything of value owned by defendant. (Doc. 28.) On June 13, 2005,

defendant filed an opposition to the June 8 motion. (Doc. 29.) 

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

Case 1:04-cv-05004-OWW -SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 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

27

28

2

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 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.

Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief are not supported by evidence, aside from

plaintiff’s conclusory declarations requesting the forms of relief set forth in his motions. “[A]

preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless

the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S.

968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A party seeking a

preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported by evidence. Further,

with respect to medical treatment, plaintiff’s lay opinion concerning what medical treatment he is

in need of is insufficient to support a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff has not met

his burden as the party moving for the preliminary injunctive relief and is not, at this time, entitled

to this extraordinary remedy. 

The court therefore HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary

injunctive relief, filed March 28, 2005 and June 8, 2005, 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 thirty (30)

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 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05004-OWW -SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 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

27

28

3

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: August 1, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05004-OWW -SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 3