Robertson v. Doe

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-02523
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 REGINAL ROBERTSON, 11 Case No. 20-02523 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 13 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER J. KAISER-NEVEL, et al., 14

Defendants. 15 (Docket No. 22) 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against jail staff at the Santa Rita County Jail, where he is currently 20 housed. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend, Dkt. No. 19, such that the 21 second amended complaint filed on October 15, 2020, is now the operative complaint in 22 this action. Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiff has recently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction 23 and temporary restraining order to compel Defendants to acknowledge his status as a 24 “court-certified pro-per” and be provided “all materials, rights, privileges, and assistance 25 afforded to inmates with said designation.” Dkt. No. 22 at 1-2. 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 sets forth the procedure for issuance of a 27 preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Prior to granting a 1 65(a)(1). Therefore, a motion for preliminary injunction cannot be decided until the 2 parties to the action are served. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). A 3 TRO may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s 4 attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the 5 verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the 6 applicant before the adverse party or the party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and 7 (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to 8 give notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required. See 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 10 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 11 not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” 12 Lopez v. Brewer, et al., 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis 13 in original). The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to that required for a preliminary 14 injunction. See Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 15 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J., dissenting). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary 16 injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer 17 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 18 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources 19 Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 20 Defendants have not been served in this action, and Plaintiff does not indicate that 21 he has otherwise notified them of the claims in this matter. Accordingly, it does not appear 22 that Plaintiff has satisfied the notice requirement of Rule 65(a)(1). Furthermore, Plaintiff 23 has established none of the factors under Winter to otherwise warrant preliminary relief. 24 Lastly, a plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction based on claims not pled in the complaint. 25 Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). 26 “[T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive 1 |} nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in 2 || the underlying complaint itself.” Jd. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was unlawfully 3 || confined in a visiting booth for several hours, resulting in various deprivations. Dkt. No. 4 21 at 6-7. These claims have no nexus to the claim in the instant motion that he is entitled 5 || to “pro-per” status. Dkt. No. 22. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 6 || injunction and TRO is DENIED as without merit. 7 This order terminates Docket No. 22. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: _January 4, 2021 heh Lh armen! 10 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 11 12

Q 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order Denying TRO PRO-SE\BLF\CR.20\02523Robertson_deny.tro 26 27