(PC) Keel v. Hedgpeth et al, No. 1:2008cv00242 - Document 59 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS re 49 ; Objections due Within 30 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/19/2009. It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED That Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 12/22/2009. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Keel v. Hedgpeth et al Doc. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY KEEL, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00242-OWW-YNP PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. 49) A. HEDGPETH, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Anthony Keel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 16, 2009, Plaintiff 17 filed a motion entitled “Plaintiff Motion for Injunction to Appeal based on 11 Months Lockdown 18 in (illegible) That’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” (Doc. #49.) The nature of Plaintiff’s motion 19 is unclear. Plaintiff appears to be seeking intervention by the Court due to retaliation from filing 20 lawsuits against prison officials. 21 It is unclear what sort of injunctive relief Plaintiff is seeking through his motion. Plaintiff 22 does not identify a specific risk of future harm and does not identify specifically what he is asking 23 the Court to do. Plaintiff is advised that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 24 status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court 25 to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. 26 University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). In filing a motion for a preliminary 27 injunction, Plaintiff must specifically identify what risk of irreparable harm he faces and what he 28 wants the Court to do. Plaintiff must also demonstrate how the Court’s intervention will prevent 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff from suffering irreparable harm. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 2 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). It is unclear from Plaintiff’s motion what risk of irreparable harm he is 3 facing. Plaintiff describes retaliatory actions by prison officials and the deprivation of privileges due 4 to being placed on lockdown. Plaintiff is advised that the appropriate course of action for remedying 5 past injuries is a separate lawsuit. Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction based on a 6 hypothetical future injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983) (plaintiff 7 must show that threat of injury is both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical). Plaintiff 8 must demonstrate more than the bare conclusion that prison officials have retaliated against him in 9 the past and are therefore likely to retaliate against him again in the future. 10 In addition to identifying a risk of future irreparable harm, Plaintiff must also demonstrate 11 that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 12 injunction is in the public interest. Id. Plaintiff’s motion fails to present evidence or allegations that 13 demonstrate any of these factors. “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, 14 one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 15 persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) 16 (emphasis in original). A party seeking a preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that 17 motion is unsupported by evidence. 18 19 Finally, with respect to motions for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that: 20 23 [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. 24 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Thus, to qualify for preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must demonstrate 25 that his requested relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the harm 26 identified, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. Plaintiff’s motion fails to 27 establish any of these prerequisites. 28 /// 21 22 2 1 The Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The Court is 2 unable to determine what relief Plaintiff is seeking in his motion. The Court also finds that Plaintiff 3 has failed to identify any specific, future risk of irreparable harm. Nor has Plaintiff presented any 4 evidence that he is likely to succeed on the merits of this lawsuit, that the balance of equities tips in 5 his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. 6 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be DENIED. 8 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days 10 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections 11 with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 12 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 13 and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 14 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 15 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: icido3 November 19, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
