Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290-2/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

STEWART MANAGO, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2290 LKK KJM P

vs.

BRAD WILLIAMS, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking that the court issue

an order prohibiting a retaliatory transfer to any institution where he would be put in danger and

would be unable to receive adequate mental health care. 

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief 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. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 06/05/08 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

any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury.” 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. Id. Moreover, speculative

injury does not constitute irreparable harm. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844

F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988); Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472

(9th Cir. 1984). A presently existing actual threat must be shown, although the injury need not

be certain to occur. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130-31

(1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020

(1998); Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., 844 F.2d at 674.

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Plaintiff’s motion tracks the allegations of his complaint, including his claims that

the defendants have retaliated against him for reporting a correctional officer’s misconduct by

spreading rumors that he is a snitch and by falsifying his mental health records. Nothing in the

pleading or in its numerous exhibits suggests that plaintiff is in any danger of transfer to another

institution. Accordingly, these allegations of speculative injury cannot support plaintiff’s request

for injunctive relief. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request for a preliminary

injunction (docket no. 6) be denied. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 06/05/08 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

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: June 4, 2008. 

2

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 06/05/08 Page 3 of 3