Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al.

E.D. California

Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al.

DecidedSeptember 23, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01353

StatusUnknown

This text of Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al. (Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1353-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M. SINGH, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed two motions for appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 26 18 & 29, and another for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, ECF No. 28. I 19 will deny his motions for appointment of counsel and recommend that his motion for preliminary 20 injunctive relief be denied without prejudice. 21 Motions for Appointment of Counsel 22 Plaintiff argues that counsel should be appointed on his behalf because his eyesight has 23 worsened, and he will be temporarily blind for an indeterminate amount of time and unable to 24 effectively litigate. ECF No. 26 at 1-6. The immediate motion was drafted by another inmate, 25 Mark Johnson, on plaintiff’s behalf. Id. at 6. I am not unsympathetic to plaintiff’s plight, but 26 appointment of counsel in pro se civil cases is impossible in all but the rarest of circumstances. I 27 cannot require counsel to represent claimants in civil cases and attempts to find counsel often 28 require pausing a case for months while court staff attempt (often without success) to find 1 amenable counsel. I am disinclined to order commencement of that process here, because 2 plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is 3 denied. If he requires additional time to litigate because of his health issues, he may motion for 4 reasonable extensions. 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 6 Another inmate, Mark Johnson, has filed a declaration on plaintiff’s behalf that alleges 7 imminent danger from defendant Singh and requests that a temporary restraining order issue, 8 requiring that all defendants stay out of plaintiff’s housing unit. ECF No. 28 at 3. The motion, 9 such as it is, fails because it does not address the Winter factors for the issuance of preliminary 10 injunctive relief. See Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a 11 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 12 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 13 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”). Neither does it, beyond Johnson’s 14 unsupported contentions, offer any substantive evidence that plaintiff is in imminent danger from 15 Singh or any other defendant. And absent convincing evidence, courts should not interfere in 16 prison operations. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 88 (1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 17 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff may renew this motion with additional evidence and a 18 discussion of the Winter factors. 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 20 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action; and 21 2. Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel, ECF Nos. 26 &29, are DENIED. 22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and 23 temporary restraining order, ECF No. 28, be DENIED. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 1 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 3 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 23, 2025 Q_———— 8 awe D. PE i ERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1353-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M. SINGH, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed two motions for appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 26 18 & 29, and another for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, ECF No. 28. I 19 will deny his motions for appointment of counsel and recommend that his motion for preliminary 20 injunctive relief be denied without prejudice. 21 Motions for Appointment of Counsel 22 Plaintiff argues that counsel should be appointed on his behalf because his eyesight has 23 worsened, and he will be temporarily blind for an indeterminate amount of time and unable to 24 effectively litigate. ECF No. 26 at 1-6. The immediate motion was drafted by another inmate, 25 Mark Johnson, on plaintiff’s behalf. Id. at 6. I am not unsympathetic to plaintiff’s plight, but 26 appointment of counsel in pro se civil cases is impossible in all but the rarest of circumstances. I 27 cannot require counsel to represent claimants in civil cases and attempts to find counsel often 28 require pausing a case for months while court staff attempt (often without success) to find 1 amenable counsel. I am disinclined to order commencement of that process here, because 2 plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is 3 denied. If he requires additional time to litigate because of his health issues, he may motion for 4 reasonable extensions. 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 6 Another inmate, Mark Johnson, has filed a declaration on plaintiff’s behalf that alleges 7 imminent danger from defendant Singh and requests that a temporary restraining order issue, 8 requiring that all defendants stay out of plaintiff’s housing unit. ECF No. 28 at 3. The motion, 9 such as it is, fails because it does not address the Winter factors for the issuance of preliminary 10 injunctive relief. See Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a 11 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 12 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 13 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”). Neither does it, beyond Johnson’s 14 unsupported contentions, offer any substantive evidence that plaintiff is in imminent danger from 15 Singh or any other defendant. And absent convincing evidence, courts should not interfere in 16 prison operations. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 88 (1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 17 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff may renew this motion with additional evidence and a 18 discussion of the Winter factors. 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 20 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action; and 21 2. Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel, ECF Nos. 26 &29, are DENIED. 22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and 23 temporary restraining order, ECF No. 28, be DENIED. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 1 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 3 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 23, 2025 Q_———— 8 awe D. PE i ERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronnie-cherokee-brown-v-m-singh-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack