Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01256/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01256-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Tilton
Respondent
Harold Walker
Petitioner

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES TILTON,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01256 AWI DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

[Doc. 28]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On March 28, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of the order. 

On April 11, 2008, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, injunctive

relief is only given in to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the

Case 1:07-cv-01256-WWS Document 30 Filed 04/16/08 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

moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the parties’ positions until the

merits of the action are ultimately determined. See University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1)

a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air

Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, Petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief

tracks the claim in the petition – Petitioner’s rights were violated at the parole revocation. The

briefing on Petitioner’s underlying claim is being concluded at this time, and the merit’s of

Petitioner’s claim will be addressed shortly. Petitioner has failed to show that equity requires

the court to take this petition out of order and immediately resolve Petitioner’s petition by issuing

immediate injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 28, 2008, is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief (Court Docs. 21, 25) are DENIED;

3. This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to consider the petition’s

underlying claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01256-WWS Document 30 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2