Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00788/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00788-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF E. WALKER,

CDCR #F-11343,

Case

No. 

14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR

FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 64)

vs.

C/O D. HUBERT. et al.,

Defendants.

 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s sixth Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 64.) 

I. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Here, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion

for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff’s request is not clear but he does claim that the

Court “can order prison to have I.C.C. (Institutional Classification Committee) stay away

order.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 8.) Plaintiff claims that he is under “risk of ‘imminent danger’”

because he has been found guilty of disciplinary violations and has been assessed a “60

day loss of credit.” (Id. at 1-2.)

-1- 14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Case 3:14-cv-00788-BTM-KSC Document 65 Filed 05/21/15 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

The purpose of a preliminary injunction isto 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 plaintiff seeking a

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance

of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)

(citation omitted). 

In addition to thistraditional test, the NinthCircuit has also applied an “alternative

standard,” whereby injunctive relief may issue when Plaintiff demonstrates “either a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury”

or that “serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his

favor.” Ranchers Cattleman Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. United

States Dept. of Ag., 415 F.3d 1078, 1092 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Save Our Sonoran, Inc.

v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005)).

As the Court has previously informed Plaintiff, his suggestion that the Court issue

any sort of injunctive relief regarding his disciplinary chargesis not the type of relief that

can be sought in this action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973)

(holding that a person in state custody may not use § 1983 to challenge “the very fact or

duration of . . . confinement” by seeking “a determination that he is entitled to immediate

release or a speedier release from that imprisonment.”)

In the remainder of his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or TRO, it appearsthat

Plaintiff is arguing against Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which is

scheduled for hearing on July 10, 2015. In this pending motion, Defendants maintain

that Plaintiff has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this

action. If Plaintiff wishes to oppose Defendants’ Motion, he should file an Opposition

as explained in the Court’s May 8, 2015 Order. 

-2- 14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Case 3:14-cv-00788-BTM-KSC Document 65 Filed 05/21/15 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary

Restraining Order is DENIED without prejudice.1

II. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby:

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for

Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 64) without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2015

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Plaintiff filed supplemental documents in support of this motion on May 7, 2015. (ECF No. 1

55) It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to bring additional claims against parties not yet named in this

action. If Plaintiff wishes to add additional parties, he must file a motion seeking leave to amend.

-3- 14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Case 3:14-cv-00788-BTM-KSC Document 65 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 3