Cesar De La Garza v. Joan Fabian, et al, No. 07-2032 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. Notice of appeal was timely only as to the district court's order denying petitioner's second two motions for preliminary injunction, and, with respect to those motions, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying them.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2032 ___________ Cesar De La Garza, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Joan Fabian; Erik Skon; Jessica * Symmes; Make Thielen; Lacie * [UNPUBLISHED] Stevenson; Lynn Dingle; Jane Norman, * sued in their individual and official * capacities, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: July 18, 2008 Filed: August 5, 2008 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. State prisoner Cesar De La Garza brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the district court s1 orders denying his motions for counsel and preliminary injunctive relief in his pro se 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 lawsuit. This appeal is timely, however, only as 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. to the order denying De La Garza s second two motions for preliminary injunctive relief. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(c)(1). After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying those motions. See Lankford v. Sherman, 451 F.3d 496, 503-04 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court has broad discretion when ruling on preliminary injunctions and this court reverses only for abuse of that discretion, which occurs where district court rests its conclusion on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusions); Mid-Am. Real Estate Co. v. Iowa Realty Co., 406 F.3d 969, 977 (8th Cir. 2005) (for court to enter preliminary injunction, it must find that moving party will be irreparably harmed absent injunction); Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (in prison context, request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with complex and intractable problems of prison administration). Accordingly, the district court s order is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
