(PC) Gaston v. Redmon, No. 1:2009cv01434 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order Be DENIED (Doc. 16 ), Objections Due Within 30 Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/2/2011. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 3/10/2011. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Gaston v. Redmon Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY GASTON, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01434-AWI-SKO PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BE DENIED v. TOMMY REDMON, et al., (Doc. 16) 13 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Anthony Gaston (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 18 preliminary injunction. (Doc. #16.) Plaintiff requests that the Court order prison officials at Kern 19 Valley State Prison to return Plaintiff's property to him so he can prepare and file an amended 20 complaint before the deadline set by the Court. 21 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities 22 so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions 23 until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 24 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 25 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 26 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter 27 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 2 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. 3 Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A 4 party seeking a preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported by 5 evidence. With respect to motions for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order, 6 the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that: 7 [i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief 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 that harm. 8 9 10 11 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 12 13 Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on July 9, 2010. (Doc. #21.) Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be denied as moot. 14 15 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED. 16 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 18 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 19 objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 21 shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 22 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 23 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: ie14hj February 2, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
