-JFM (PC) Penn v. McDonald et al, No. 2:2009cv02443 - Document 89 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 06/24/2011 RECOMMENDING that the 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT be GRANTED and that the 87 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be DENIED. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 21 days. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JFM (PC) Penn v. McDonald et al Doc. 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARLIN PENN, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 vs. WARDEN McDONALD, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 No. 2:09-cv-2443 KJM JFM (PC) Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil 17 rights action in which he alleges that defendants at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) have 18 tampered with, withheld and prevented his legal mail from being mailed. On March 28, 2011, 19 the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ October 20 25, 2011 motion for summary judgment be granted. That matter is presently pending before the 21 Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. 22 On May 26, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff 23 seeks (1) a transfer from HDSP to California State Prison – Corcoran, (2) an order prohibiting 24 defendants from improperly screening plaintiff’s administrative appeals, and (3) an order 25 prohibiting defendants from tampering with plaintiff’s mail. 26 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 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of 2 hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 3 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 4 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal 5 point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under 6 any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of 7 irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the 8 court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. 9 In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any 10 preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the 11 harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to 12 correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 13 A court grants preliminary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo and prevent 14 irreparable harm pending a resolution on the merits of a lawsuit. Los Angeles Memorial 15 Coliseum Com'n, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). “Thus, a party moving for a preliminary 16 injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's 17 motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th 18 Cir. 1994); Ransom v. Scribner, 2011 WL 126994 (E.D. Cal. 2011). 19 The court has examined plaintiff’s motion and finds that, to the extent plaintiff 20 seeks an order prohibiting defendants from tampering with his mail, the motion should be denied 21 as plaintiff has not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or the possibility of 22 irreparable injury. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 23 1997); see also Doc. No. 68 (findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ 24 motion for summary judgment be granted). 25 As to plaintiff’s remaining claims, the court finds that they differ in substance 26 from those claims brought in the complaint. Because of the difference between the claims at issue in plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief and the claims in his complaint, the 1 preliminary relief requested should be denied. See, e.g., Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (upholding 2 denial of preliminary injunctive relief where prisoner's preliminary relief claims of mistreatment 3 stemming from the filing of his lawsuit were “entirely different” from the claims of inadequate 4 medical treatment in his complaint); see also Stewart v. Ryan, 2010 WL 921473 (D. Ariz. 2010) 5 (“Plaintiff must seek injunctive relief related to the merits of his underlying claim”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for 6 7 preliminary injunction be denied. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that 13 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 14 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: June 24, 2011. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /014;penn2443.48
]]>
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.
