Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00993/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00993-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUANJA EDWARD ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff Tuanja Edward Anderson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Eighth Amendment. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 

Request for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). (Mot., ECF No. 48.)

In Plaintiff’s motion, he claims that he is “suppose [sic] to have daily access to the 

library or the computer,” but prison staff “refuse [to give him] access to the library or 

computer.” (Mot. at 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff does not have “sufficient knowledge on 

how to use the computer,” and staff do “not know how to use it either.” (Id.) He requests 

“10 hours a week in a physical law library for research, preparing and submittal, and 

photocopying documents consistent with litigation in this matter.” (Id.)

The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary injunction 

hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to prevent 

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of 

Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (noting that a TRO is 

restricted to its “underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing 

irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer”). As such, 

an applicant for a TRO is required to demonstrate “immediate and irreparable injury, loss 

or damage.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); see also Caribbean Marine Serv. Co., Inc. v. 

Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to the standard for issuing a preliminary 

injunction. Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 

1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Under the traditional test, a party must establish that he is 

“likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 

in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) 

(citation omitted). Alternatively, a Court may issue injunctive relief when Plaintiff 

demonstrates “either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility 

of irreparable injury” or that “serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships 

tips sharply in his favor.” Ranchers Cattleman Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers 

of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 415 F.3d 1078, 1092 (9th Cir. 2005).

This matter has already proceeded past the motion to dismiss stage, and the only 

pending motion is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 46.) 

Therefore, there are no pending motions that require a response by Plaintiff. Moreover, 

there is no indication by Plaintiff whether he will allegedly continue to be denied access 

to the library and computer. Based on these considerations, Plaintiff’s Motion is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 2