Jones v. Holmes, 3:11-cv-00047

Background

Plaintiff Jason M. Jones, an NDOC inmate proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was permitted to proceed on multiple claims including retaliation and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety and medical needs arising from assaults and post‑surgical care.
He moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to remain in HDSP administrative segregation (or be placed in a protective camp), alleging ongoing safety risks after prior assaults and asserted failure to follow his surgeon’s orders.
Jones also complained of denial of educational services and mail tampering in the motions.
Defendants responded that Jones requested protective custody for gambling‑debt reasons, was placed in secure housing at SDCC, refused administrative segregation consideration, and was pending transfer to Ely State Prison (ESP) for closed custody; they asserted he remained enrolled in correspondence education.
The magistrate judge found Jones provided no specific facts showing an imminent risk at any identified transfer location; the transfer to ESP rendered some relief moot; and the education claim is unrelated to the pending claims and not constitutionally protected.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether preliminary injunctive relief to remain in HDSP administrative segregation (or be sent to a protective camp) is warranted	Jones says he faces imminent safety risk after repeated assaults and surgeon's orders were ignored; he wants to stay in administrative segregation or be moved to protective camp	NDOC says Jones sought protective custody for gambling debts, refused administrative segregation, was placed in secure dayroom, and is being transferred to ESP (closed custody) which mitigates risk	Denied — Jones failed to show likelihood of irreparable harm or identify a specific risk at his transfer; request is moot after transfer to ESP
Whether injunction should compel NDOC to follow post‑surgical medical orders	Jones alleges NDOC failed to follow his surgeon’s medical orders after skull/brain injury	Defendants argue medical care issues are addressed and insufficiently pleaded for injunctive relief in this motion	Denied — plaintiff did not meet Winter factors showing likely success or irreparable harm for medical relief in this motion
Whether injunction should require provision of educational services	Jones asserts he’s being denied education he signed up for	Defendants assert he is enrolled in correspondence education and educational access is being provided	Denied — no constitutional right to prison education; issue unrelated to pending claims
Whether other asserted claims (mail tampering, classification) justify emergency relief	Jones alleges ongoing mail tampering and classification problems increase his danger	Defendants dispute or contextualize those allegations and note available administrative remedies/transfers	Denied — Jones failed to demonstrate the prerequisites for injunctive relief; requests unrelated or moot as to pending transfer

Key Cases Cited

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending resolution on the merits)
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy not awarded as of right)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (established four‑factor test for preliminary injunctions)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions test survives as part of Winter’s four‑factor analysis)
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing limits on possibility vs. likelihood of irreparable harm after Winter)
Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1984) (courts are cautious issuing mandatory injunctions that alter the status quo)
Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112 (9th Cir. 1979) (mandatory injunctions require facts and law to clearly favor the moving party)
Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2000) (PLRA restricts injunctive relief for prisoners to the constitutional minimum and emphasizes narrow tailoring)