Michael Dewayne Outley, Jr. v. City of Modesto, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MICHAEL DEWAYNE OUTLEY, JR. , No. 2:26-cv-0687 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CITY OF MODESTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se, and is currently housed at the California 18 Health Care Facility in Stockton, (“CHCF”). Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining 19 order and preliminary injunction along with his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 The Court has not yet screened the complaint. As discussed below, the Court recommends that 21 plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) be 22 denied. 24 In his 51 page handwritten complaint, plaintiff alleges he was subjected to an illegal 25 search and seizure, false arrest, kidnapping, malicious prosecution, conspiracy and contends 26 certain defendants allegedly failed to intervene; plaintiff was also subjected to excessive force, 27 assault and battery, invasion of privacy, dissemination of protected information, negligence/gross 28 negligence, and claims a violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. (ECF No. 1 at 35-48 1 (Claims 1 - 5).) Plaintiff’s claims stem from an incident at a Modesto city park on March 19, 2 2024, where plaintiff alleges he was attempting to distract his two year old godson with plaintiff’s 3 “big knife in a sheath with draw strings on it,” letting his godson grab the strings and sheath, 4 which calmed the godson down, at which point plaintiff returned the sheathed knife into his cargo 5 shorts pocket. (ECF No. 1. at 10.) Plaintiff contends the knife remained sheathed at all times. 6 (Id.) Someone in the crowded park called 911, resulting in no less than five city police officers 7 responding to the scene. (Id. at 23-24.) As a number of the defendant officers approached 8 plaintiff, he backed away, and defendant Brandon Soria, police officer with the Modesto Police 9 Department, came up behind plaintiff and allegedly used unnecessary force by restraining 10 plaintiff in a wrist lock; defendant Brandon Soria then removed plaintiff’s knife and threw it on 11 the table, and plaintiff was put in the back of a police car. (Id. at 7, 24.) Plaintiff alleges there 12 was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion for his arrest, and claims he was not on parole or 13 probation or any other type of supervision at that time. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges these 14 violations of his rights occurred because of customs or policies maintained by the municipal 15 defendants. (Id. at 26.) 16 According to plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, he was “only charged with an ‘after 17 the fact’ charge of 21310 Dirk or Dagger.”1 (ECF No. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that the matter 18 involving all of the defendants herein was dismissed in the interest of justice on November 25, 19 2025.2 (ECF No. 1 at 22.) 20 Plaintiff claims he has suffered monetary losses, lost his knife, and also suffered the 21 invasion of privacy by the release and spread of his protected juvenile crime details, which he 22 alleges puts plaintiff at future risk of more unlawful searches and seizures. (ECF No. 1 at 25-26.) 23 As relief, plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction preventing further unlawful searches and 24 1 California Penal Code § 21310 provides as follows: “Except as provided in Chapter 1 25 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who carries concealed upon the person any dirk or dagger is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not 26 exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.” Cal. Penal 27 Code § 21310. 2 Plaintiff states he took a plea offer on an unrelated matter (ECF No. 1 at 22), which may be 28 why he is currently in state custody. 1 seizures, false arrest, and dissemination of protected information, unreasonable discriminatory 2 uses of force, and racially and biased profiling of plaintiff. (Id. at 49-50.) Plaintiff also seeks 3 money damages, costs of suit, and requests that the Court seal his entire motion for preliminary 4 injunctive relief (ECF No. 2) and certain portions of his complaint (ECF No. 1 at 42:24; 50:6-7, 5 14-15). (Id. at 50.) 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and restraining orders, and 8 requires that a motion for temporary restraining order include “specific facts in an affidavit or a 9 verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate, and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will 10 result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as well as written 11 certification from the movant’s attorney stating “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons 12 why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 13 Temporary restraining orders are generally governed by the same standard applicable to 14 preliminary injunctions, except that preliminary injunctions require notice to the adverse party. 15 See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 16 (E.D. Cal. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Eastern District of California Local Rule 231 requires 17 notice for temporary restraining orders as well, “[e]xcept in the most extraordinary of 18 circumstances,” and the court considers whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion 19 for preliminary injunction at an earlier date. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(a)-(b). A temporary 20 restraining order “should be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status 21 quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” 22 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 23 423, 439 (1974). 24 A temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary remedy” and may be issued only if 25 plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in 26 the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his/her favor; and (4) that 27 an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 28 (2008). Plaintiff bears the burden of clearly satisfying all four prongs. Alliance for the Wild 1 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). A temporary restraining order will not 2 issue if plaintiff merely shows irreparable harm is possible—a showing of likelihood is required. 3 Id. at 1131. 4 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 5 litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 6 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 7 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 8 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Villery v. California Dep’t of Corr., 9 2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit observed, the PLRA places 10 significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, and 11 “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the 12 bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that 13 binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 14 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 17 Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeks the 18 preliminary relief set forth in his complaint: a preliminary injunction ordering defendants and 19 their agents to return plaintiff’s knife taken on March 19, 2024, redact any protected information 20 that is published about plaintiff’s juvenile record, and to refrain from any further searches and 21 seizures of plaintiff without a search warrant or in the absence of exigent circumstances, pending 22 resolution of this action. (ECF No. 2 at 6, incorporating ECF No. 1 at 50.) 24 Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief was filed with his complaint that has 25 not yet been screened by the Court, and no defendant has been served with process. Until 26 defendants have been served with process, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and 27 may not grant the injunctive relief he seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Murphy Bros, Inc. v. v. 28 Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999). 1 Moreover, plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief based on future searches and 2 seizures. A plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief only when the possibility of future 3 injury is particular and concrete. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496-97 (1974). Put another 4 way, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a “credible threat” exists that he will again be subjected to 5 the specific injury for which he seeks injunctive relief. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 6 355 n.3 (1983) (being stopped fifteen times for the same offense within two years constitutes a 7 credible threat). “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or 8 controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse 9 effects.” O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 495-96; see also Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 10 1042 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that motorists stopped near the border allegedly due to their 11 Hispanic appearance had no standing to pursue injunctive relief against Border Patrol officials 12 because the fact that the motorists had each been stopped only one time in about ten years 13 demonstrated it was unlikely they would be stopped again). 14 Here, plaintiff alleges defendant Brandon Soria is biased against plaintiff based on verbal 15 comments plaintiff’s girlfriend overheard during plaintiff’s November 25, 2025 preliminary 16 hearing, and plaintiff claims that he has been falsely arrested and “on numerous different 17 occasions when dealing with Modesto police officers the encounters have been similarly 18 dismissed.” (ECF No. 2 at 1, 3; see also ECF No. 1 at 26.) But plaintiff provides insufficient 19 facts for the Court to determine whether the alleged prior “different occasions” pose a credible 20 threat sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff is likely to again be subjected to specific injury if 21 preliminary injunctive relief is not granted. In addition, at present, plaintiff is housed in CHCF. 22 Therefore, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he faces the likelihood of irreparable harm in the 23 absence of preliminary relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Because plaintiff is presently 24 incarcerated, he faces no risk of further searches or seizures by defendants who are located in 25 Modesto. 26 Plaintiff’s request for the return of his knife is not properly raised in a motion for 27 injunctive relief. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that absent immediate return of the knife he will 28 suffer irreparable injury, and could not possess a knife in prison in any event. 1 Finally, with regard to plaintiff’s request to have protected information redacted, it is 2 unclear in what document the protected information was included. To the extent it was included 3 in discovery obtained in the now dismissed criminal case in state court (ECF No. 1 at 14), 4 plaintiff fails to demonstrate such information is accessible to the public. At a minimum, plaintiff 5 should stop including such details in his filings in this action, because all filings herein are a 6 matter of public record. In an abundance of caution, the Court will seal plaintiff’s motion for 7 preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 2) and, in the interest of judicial economy, will seal 8 plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1). But in the future, plaintiff should not include such details and 9 only needs to refer generally to his “juvenile record,” without providing any specific details 10 related thereto. 12 For the reasons stated herein, this Court recommends that plaintiff’s motion for temporary 13 restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) be denied. 14 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 16 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to seal plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) and motion 17 for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2). 18 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for temporary 19 restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) be denied. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 23 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 24 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 2 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 Dated: March 26, 2026 7 Cha Spo 6 | voaioss7 vo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28