Johnson v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING 11 Motion to Amend Petition; ORDER DENYING 12 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/17/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

1:15-cv-00600 AWI MJS HC
STEVEN A. JOHNSON,

12

ORDER
DENYING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v.

13
14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
Petitioner, PETITION

MA,

MOTION

FOR

[Docs. 11-12]
Respondent.

15
16
17
18

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

19

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 17, 2015.

20

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) On June 15, 2015, Petitioner filed separate motions to amend the

21

petition and for injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 11-12.)

22
23

Petitioner, in his motion to amend, seeks to amend the name of Respondent from
Ma to Matevousian. (ECF No. 11.) The motion is hereby GRANTED.

24

Petitioner also seeks a preliminary injunction requesting release from the

25

segregated housing unit, transfer to another prison, and timely adjudication of his

26

habeas petition.

27

Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a

28

preliminary injunction. The Court can issue a temporary restraining order if the moving
1

1

party has shown either "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of

2

irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the

3

balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

4

Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple

5

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984). The two

6

formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree

7

of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. "Under either

8

formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

9

irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a significant showing of irreparable injury, the

10

Court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

11

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate either 1) a

12

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or

13

2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of

14

hardships tips sharply in its favor. First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378,

15

1381 (9th Cir.1987.)

16

Petitioner has presented no evidence in his motion for preliminary injunction of the

17

likelihood of success of the merits of the petition. Petitioner has provided little support for

18

the motion, including only a few sentences regarding alleged intimidation and retaliation

19

by the prison guards. Petitioner has provided no specific details regarding his claims to

20

support the motion. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden demonstrating

21

entitlement to injunctive relief.

22
23

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for
injunctive relief is DENIED.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 17, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2