Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01095/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01095-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-1095 JLT SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND/OR OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 24)

Tracye Benard Washington seeks to hold the defendant liable for deliberate indifference 

to his serious medical needs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining 

order or other injunctive relief related to his housing, asserting the ventilation was deficient in the 

Short-Term Restricted Housing at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, and this 

puts his health at risk. (Doc. 16.)

The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to show a temporary restraining order or 

injunctive relief was proper. (Doc. 24 at 4-5.) The magistrate judge observed that “Plaintiff is no 

longer housed in a STRH unit cell or even at SATF,” and is now at Kern Valley State Prison. (Id.

at 5.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff “only demonstrated a possibility of irreparable harm 

and there is no real or immediate threat Plaintiff will be wronged again.” (Id.) Further, the 

magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. 

(Id. at 4, 5.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s request for a temporary 

Case 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO Document 32 Filed 03/01/24 Page 1 of 3
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

2

restraining order or other injunctive relief be denied. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 27.) He maintains 

the Court should issue “temporary injunctive relief, to prohibit housing of all inmates who shared 

the same medical and physical conditions as Plaintiff from being housed in SATF Ad-Seg Unit 

until such time as STATF/CDCR modified conditions in this unit....” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 

contends that because the magistrate judge previously found his claims were “plausible,” at the 

screening stage, “he has also made a meritorious claim for injunctive relief.” (Id. at 3.)

Although the Court found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim at the screening stage—

where the Court must assume all allegations are true— this does not determine whether there is a 

likelihood of succeeding on the merits. See, e.g., Porter v. Rivas, 2023 WL 4765492, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. July 26, 2023) (“[a]likelihood of success on the merits determination is not the same as that 

required at screening”). He has not identified any evidence, at this juncture, that would show he 

is likely to succeed on the merits.

Moreover, Plaintiff does not contest the determination that he, personally, does not have 

substantial risk of serious physical harm. In his status as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff lacks standing 

to bring claims on behalf of other prisoners. See Jorss v. Schwarzenegger, 168 Fed. App’x 825, 

826 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding a “district court properly dismissed the complaint because a plaintiff 

acting pro se cannot represent others”); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 

1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear 

as an attorney for others than himself”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Jorss 

v. Schwarzenegger, 168 Fed. App’x 825, 826 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding the district court properly 

dismissed the complaint because the pro se prisoner plaintiff could not represent others). It 

follows that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of other inmates.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 

case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes 

the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the 

Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued February 12, 2024 (Doc. 24) are 

Case 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO Document 32 Filed 03/01/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s motion or request for a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief 

(Doc. 16) is DENIED

3. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO Document 32 Filed 03/01/24 Page 3 of 3