Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01123/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01123-4/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Glenn T. Mason,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1123 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

M. Sandham, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting a

civil rights action against prison officials. In his June 10,

2004, complaint, plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were

violated by prison officials’ failure to provide hard contact

lenses or corneal transplant for bilateral keratoconus and

history of corneal hydrops in the right eye. The pleading seeks

damages and an order prohibiting defendants from retaliating

against plaintiff for bringing this suit. 

June 29, 2005, plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction. 

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 55 Filed 12/28/05 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

The motion makes vague allusions to negative actions plaintiff

perceives as retaliatory (“bully tactics,” “broken, taken or

dest[royed] property”); the only specific relief requested is

“contact lens solution.” Defendants opposed the motion July 15,

2005, providing evidence plaintiff received contact lens solution

July 5, 2005. Plaintiff replied August 10 and 25, 2005, but he

did not dispute that he had received contact lens solution. 

Plaintiff’s September 28, 2005, motion for counsel indicates he

was scheduled to receive a corneal transplant between October 11

and December 10, 2005. 

A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary

because threatened injury would impair the court’s ability to

grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc.

v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984);

Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A

preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a very far

reaching power never to be indulged except in a case clearly

warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141,

143 (9th Cir. 1964). The threatened injury must be immediate. 

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. National Football League,

634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). Since the remedy is

equitable in nature, there must be no adequate remedy at law. 

Stanley v. University of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir.

1994). 

Even if movant makes that threshold showing, he is not

entitled to a prohibitory preliminary injunction unless he

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 55 Filed 12/28/05 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

demonstrates either probable success on the merits and the

possibility of irreparable injury, or serious questions regarding

the merits of his claims and a balance of hardships tipping

sharply in his favor. Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d

1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 1979). If the balance of harm tips

decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show

as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the

balance tips less decidedly. Benda v. Grand Lodge of the

International Association of Machinists, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th

Cir. 1978). If the relief sought is mandatory rather than

prohibitory, the balance must more clearly favor the applicant. 

Dahl v. HEM Pharm. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993).

The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to

preserve the status quo pending a fuller hearing. Requests for

temporary restraining orders which are not ex parte and without

notice 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). 

Plaintiff provides nothing but speculation to support his

fear of retaliation. Plaintiff’s need for intervention to obtain

contact lens solution is moot. Thus, plaintiff fails to show the

threat of an immediate injury that would impair the court’s

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 55 Filed 12/28/05 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

ability to grant effective relief in this action absent a

restraining order and injunction. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that plaintiff’s

June 29, 2005, motions a preliminary injunction be denied.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: December 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 55 Filed 12/28/05 Page 4 of 4