Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02522/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02522-3/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

MICHAEL AARON JAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2522 LKK GGH P

vs.

SPRINT PCS, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a Shasta County Jail inmate proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion he has entitled “motion for an emergency

temporary injunction to defendant Parole Agent Abney to have no contact with plaintiff.” 

In his underlying complaint, defendant Randy Abney is one of ten defendants. 

Plaintiff claims in his complaint that he is, inter alia, being subjected to harrassment by Abney

and other defendants. See Complaint.

In his putative request for a TRO, which the court will construe as a request for a

preliminary injunction, plaintiff declares that defendant Abney is a “rogue” parole agent who has

recently caused, in April, 2008, an increase in plaintiff’s bail because Abney alleged (in court or

elsewhere) that plaintiff has ties with Hell’s Angels and that he had violated a civil TRO that

plaintiff’s wife had against plaintiff. Motion, p. 1. At the same time, plaintiff maintains that he

Case 2:07-cv-02522-LKK -KJN Document 13 Filed 04/15/08 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

has been in jail since July, 2007. Id. at 2. Plaintiff contends that he has been arraigned in Shasta

County Superior Court on six felony counts of criminal threats and nine misdemeanor counts of

stalking. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff states that it is due to defendant Abney’s report, which were

referred to the district attorney that the current charges are pending against him. Id. at 2. 

Plaintiff also contends that defendant Abney is responsible for an “outlaw biker,” and perhaps

another individual who is a member of the Hell’s Angels, wanting to kill plaintiff, though he

does not clarify this claim. Id. 

Plaintiff claims that defendant Abney has never been plaintiff’s parole agent and

asks the court either to temporarily order defendant Abney to have no contact with plaintiff,

including investigating plaintiff, or to issue a show cause order why there should not be an order

for defendant Abney to have no contact whatsoever with plaintiff and not to investigate him

beyond the criminal charges that are currently pending. Id. at 2-3.

TRO

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

pending a fuller 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 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). 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. 

Preliminary Injunction Standard

 The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well established. 

Case 2:07-cv-02522-LKK -KJN Document 13 Filed 04/15/08 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

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 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.

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).

Discussion

Plaintiff fails altogether to provide the court with any basis whatsoever to provide

any form of preliminary injunctive relief with his overly dramatic, thinly supported, confusing,

abbreviated, vague and conclusory allegations. Nor does he even state that he has recently had

direct contact with defendant Abney or articulate a viable form of injunctive relief the court

could order. If plaintiff believes himself to be in danger or subject to criminal wrongdoing, he

should notify the authorities who could conduct any appropriate criminal investigation. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s April 9, 2008 (#

11), “emergency” motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction 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 twenty

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

Case 2:07-cv-02522-LKK -KJN Document 13 Filed 04/15/08 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

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: 04/15/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jayn2522.fr

Case 2:07-cv-02522-LKK -KJN Document 13 Filed 04/15/08 Page 4 of 4