Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Woodard v. Haviland

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 9, 2010

ROBERT "BOSTON" WOODARD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN W. HAVILAND, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 5, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court agrees that the motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied, but on different grounds.

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (internal citation omitted). When a court considers whether to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction, it balances "the competing claims of injury,... the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief,... the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction," and plaintiff's likelihood of success. Id. at 374, 376-77 (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987); Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982). Specifically, in order to succeed on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must establish that "he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374.

Here, plaintiff only seeks to enjoin defendants to transfer him from one prison to another. He alleges that he was initially transferred in retaliation for activities protected under the First Amendment. Plaintiff argues that the transfer "will have silenced his writing (until he settles into his new prison home and receives his property and typewriter), and permanently eliminate[] a source of journalistic scrutiny inside their jail." TRO Application at 1. Plaintiff makes no other argument as to the injury he will sustain absent a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, and therefore, his motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.*fn1 *fn2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's August 5, 2009 motion for temporary restraining order, construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, is denied.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.