-JLT (PC) Hawkins v. Adams et al, No. 1:2009cv00771 - Document 52 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/24/2012 recommending that 50 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be DENIED. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 2/10/2012. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JLT (PC) Hawkins v. Adams et al Doc. 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEON HAWKINS, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:09-cv-00771 LJO JLT (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED vs. DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., (Doc. 50) 15 16 Defendant. / 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Castillo used excessive force in violation 19 of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 32.) On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive 20 relief restricting Defendant Castillo (and other employees) from entering the building or the area 21 surrounding the building in which Plaintiff is housed. (Doc. 50.) 22 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the 23 merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance 24 of the equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural 25 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). “A preliminary injunction 26 is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Id. at 24 (citation omitted). It may be awarded 27 only upon a clear showing that the movant is entitled to relief. Id. 28 In evaluating the Winter factors, the Ninth Circuit has maintained the “sliding scale” approach. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2010). Under this approach, 2 “the elements of the preliminary injunction are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may 3 offset a weaker showing of another.” Id. at 1049. Nevertheless, while the elements may be balanced, 4 all four factors must be present in order to warrant injunctive relief. Id. at 1052-53. 5 Here, Plaintiff contends that on December 24, 2011, Defendant Castillo threatened to poison his 6 food and that as a result, Plaintiff did not consume food from the dinner tray provided on the evening 7 of December 24, 2011. (Doc. 50 at 6.) Subsequently, Plaintiff states that prison medical providers 8 assured him that they would not allow Castillo to cause harm to Plaintiff and Plaintiff states that he 9 accepted these assurances. (Doc. 50 at 6.) 10 Other than allegations that he will be irreparably harmed, Plaintiff has failed to address any of 11 the elements required for a preliminary injunction. There is no showing that Plaintiff is likely to succeed 12 on the merits of his claims1, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 13 relief, that the balance of the equities is in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Nor 14 is Plaintiff likely able to make such a showing. Here, Plaintiff’s own delay in filing the instant motion 15 along with the absence of any further supporting facts in support of his claim, suggests Plaintiff’s 16 allegations are not plausible. Though Defendant Castillo allegedly made his threat on December 24, 17 2011, Plaintiff delayed in filing the instant motion until January 18, 2012, almost one month after the 18 alleged threat was made which suggests, even accepting the truth of the allegation, that Plaintiff did not 19 consider the threat of harm either imminent or credible. Moreover, though Plaintiff requests that 20 Defendant Castillo and other employees “acting in concert” be similarly restricted, Plaintiff has failed 21 to identify any of the other prison officials or employees. Finally, Plaintiff does not contend, for 22 example, that he has been unable to consume other meals since the Defendant Castillo made this threat 23 in December, or that Defendant Castillo poses such an immediate and lasting threat to Plaintiff’s health 24 and well being that action must be taken now. Instead, Plaintiff states that he accepted the assurances 25 of medical providers that Defendant Castillo, in any case, would not be able to carry out his threat. 26 Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to clearly demonstrate that he is entitled to a preliminary 27 28 1 The fact that the Court found Plaintiff’s claims to be cognizable in its screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) does not equate, per se, to a finding that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. 2 1 injunction, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s January 18, 2012, motion for injunctive 2 relief (Doc. 50) be DENIED. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 4 to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being 5 served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file objections with the Court. Such a 6 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 7 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 8 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 24, 2012 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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.
