Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00600-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven A. Johnson
Petitioner
Matevousian
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN A. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MA,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-00600 AWI MJS HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND 

PETITION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[Docs. 11-12]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 17, 2015. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) On June 15, 2015, Petitioner filed separate motions to amend the 

petition and for injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 11-12.)

Petitioner, in his motion to amend, seeks to amend the name of Respondent from 

Ma to Matevousian. (ECF No. 11.) The motion is hereby GRANTED. 

Petitioner also seeks a preliminary injunction requesting release from the 

segregated housing unit, transfer to another prison, and timely adjudication of his 

habeas petition.

Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a 

preliminary injunction. The Court can issue a temporary restraining order if the moving 

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 15 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

party has shown either "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of 

irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the 

balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. 

Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple 

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984). 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 either 

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 irreparable injury, the 

Court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate either 1) a 

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or 

2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of 

hardships tips sharply in its favor. First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 

1381 (9th Cir.1987.)

Petitioner has presented no evidence in his motion for preliminary injunction of the 

likelihood of success of the merits of the petition. Petitioner has provided little support for 

the motion, including only a few sentences regarding alleged intimidation and retaliation 

by the prison guards. Petitioner has provided no specific details regarding his claims to 

support the motion. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden demonstrating 

entitlement to injunctive relief. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for 

injunctive relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00600-DAD-MJS Document 15 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 2