Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00475/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00475-4/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

CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, No. CIV S-06-0475-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s document entitled “Emergency

Appeal, Restraining Order, Show Cause, Informational Motion, Motion, and Motion to Amend

Complaint” (Doc. 16). The court will address herein plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend will be addressed separately. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff asserts that he has “suffered a reprisal” in retaliation for filing the instant

lawsuit. He bases this contention on events that occurred on August 25, 2006. Plaintiff states

that prison guards “stuffed [him] in a cage” for two hours and then threatened to tamper with his

Case 2:06-cv-00475-MCE -CMK Document 19 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 4
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

legal mail, take his property, and prevent him from having any outside contact. Plaintiff states

that a prison guard said: “You do not know who you have been playing with, and the great thing

about it is, when it is all said and done, who do you think they will believe. Now get your sorry

ass out of here and go see what property you have left.” According to plaintiff, when he returned

to his cell, his television, blankets, and food were all missing. Plaintiff seeks a “restraining order

against the Department of Correction.” 

II. DISCUSSION

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, 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. See Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. Under any formulation of the

test, however, the moving party must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury. See 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. See id. The loss of

money, or an injury whose measure of damages can be calculated in terms of money, will not be

considered irreparable. See id. at 1334-35. 

The standard for a temporary restraining order is essentially the same. The

purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a more

complete hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a temporary

restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the hearing on

a preliminary injunction. It is apparent however, that requests for temporary restraining orders

Case 2:06-cv-00475-MCE -CMK Document 19 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 4
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

are governed by the same general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. 

See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist,

J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir.

1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368

(S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the emphasis of the court is directed to irreparable harm and the

balance of hardships because the merits of a controversy are often difficult to ascertain and

adjudicate on short notice.

Eastern District of California Local Rules impose additional requirements for a

motion for a temporary restraining order. First, the court will consider whether the moving party

could have sought relief by a noticed motion for a preliminary injunctive at an earlier date

without the necessity of seeking last-minute relief by motion for a temporary restraining order. 

See Local Rule 65-231(b). Second, the moving party must provide specific documents to the

court in support of the requested temporary restraining order. See Local Rule 65-231(c). 

Finally, in cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

temporary restraining order or 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. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

In this case, plaintiff has not demonstrated the possibility of irreparable injury. 

Even assuming all of plaintiff’s factual assertions are true, they suggest that plaintiff’s property

was improperly taken. This kind of injury is not irreparable. To the extent plaintiff alleges he

fears physical harm from prison officials, plaintiff’s allegations are of speculative harms and do

not suggest an imminent threat if bodily injury or some other irreparable harm. 

Moreover, the only prison official named in the motion for injunctive relief –

correctional officer Pesioles – is not a defendant to 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). 

Case 2:06-cv-00475-MCE -CMK Document 19 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief (Doc. 16) 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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: October 2, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00475-MCE -CMK Document 19 Filed 10/03/06 Page 4 of 4