United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff claims prison officials failed to provide him with
safe living conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion to
enforce a court order and his sixth motion requesting
injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 69, 70.) For the reasons set
forth below, the court will deny as moot his motion to
enforce and recommend that his motion for preliminary
injunction be denied.
objections filed on July 1, 2019 (ECF No. 58), plaintiff
alleged that inmate Chavez, housed in a neighboring cell,
gave plaintiff several pieces of metal and instructed
plaintiff to “slash” a correctional officer.
Plaintiff stated that he showed the metal to several staff
members but was not issued a rules violation report. In light
of the allegations in the objections, the court directed
counsel for defendant to inform the court of plaintiff's
housing status and any measures taken to address
plaintiff's safety concerns. (ECF No. 61.)
25, 2019, counsel for defendant filed a response containing
the declaration of Correctional Counselor Sanchez, as well as
various exhibits related to plaintiff's recent
classification committee hearings and the rules violation
report plaintiff received for possession of weapons on June
15, 2019. (ECF No. 64.) Sanchez's declaration states that
he reviewed plaintiff's central file and housing
assignment records. (ECF No. 64 at 1.) Sanchez noted that
plaintiff and inmate Chavez are no longer housed in the same
building and that they have been documented as enemies of one
another. (ECF No. 64 at 3.) Sanchez further stated that
plaintiff was endorsed for transfer to California
Correctional Institution (CCI) after he completes his
Security Housing Unit (SHU) term on October 29, 2019. (ECF
No. 64 at 3.)
now moves for an order from this court to enforce its July
11, 2019 order (ECF No. 61). Plaintiff argues that the
response submitted by counsel for defendant does not address
his safety concerns. Plaintiff claims Sanchez's
declaration fails to inform the court that plaintiff has been
placed on a list to be sent to California Correctional
Institution (CCI). Plaintiff states that CCI “is worse
than [Kern Valley State Prison] and [Salinas Valley State
Prison] together fore [sic] being the designated prison for
SNY gangs including Chavez's gang the ‘Independent
Riders.'” (ECF No. 69 at 4.) Plaintiff further
argues that Sanchez did not speak to plaintiff directly in
preparing his declaration.
defendants have filed a response that complies with the
court's July 11, 2019 order, the court will deny
plaintiff's motion to enforce as moot.
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
also moves for injunctive relief and requests an order from
this court directing that he be: (1) retained in the SHU and
not be placed on a SNY; (2) designated single cell status;
(3) placed on video escort; and (4) transferred to the
Psychiatric Services Unit (PSU) at California State Prison,
Sacramento (CSP-SAC). (ECF No. 70 at 1-2.)
argues that the declaration filed in defendant's
response, shows that CDCR officials are aware of the danger
plaintiff faces while housed in the same facility as inmate
Chavez. Plaintiff states that officials have placed
documentation in his central file stating that he and Chavez
are enemies. Plaintiff claims that Chavez is an influential
member of a gang and any fellow gang member plaintiff comes
into contact with, will act on Chavez's behalf. Plaintiff
argues that it makes no sense to acknowledge that Chavez is a
danger to plaintiff, without also finding that plaintiff
faces danger from his fellow gang members. Plaintiff states
prison officials must be aware that if plaintiff is placed on
a SNY yard he will be targeted by a member of the gang.
requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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 v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a
request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat
of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature.
Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d
668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).
under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the
plaintiff demonstrates the requisite likelihood of
irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the
public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long
as serious questions going to the merits of the case are
raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in
plaintiff's favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.
Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(concluding that the “serious questions” version
of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains
viable after Winter).
principle purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to
preserve the court's power to render a meaningful
decision after a trial on the merits. See 9 Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this
required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary
and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims
raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial.
Preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate until the
court finds that the plaintiff's complaint presents
cognizable claims. See Zepeda v. United States
Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th ...