Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00286/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00286-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MATHEWS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0286 GEB JFM P

vs.

COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is an individual proceeding through counsel with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently committed to Napa State Hospital pursuant to

competency proceedings that are part of an ongoing state criminal prosecution of plaintiff in

Butte County. In his complaint, plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated

during incarceration in the Butte County Jail through, inter alia, use of excessive force by jail

staff, failure to protect plaintiff from attacks by other inmates, and denial of adequate medical

care. 

On April 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Ex Parte Application for

Protective Order in Pending Writ of Habeas Corpus.” In the application, plaintiff claims that a

determination has been made that he has been restored to competency, that his transfer back to

Butte County is imminent, and that he is in “imminent danger of great bodily harm” due to the

Case 2:06-cv-00286-GEB -JFM Document 8 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

alleged impending transfer. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring his placement in protective

custody.

Despite the title of plaintiff’s request, this action is not a petition for habeas

corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and what plaintiff seeks at this time is a temporary restraining

order, not a protective order. Temporary restraining orders are governed by Rule 65(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 65-231. Plaintiff’s “application” appears to

have been drafted without reference to Rule 65(b) and, not surprisingly, does not satisfy the

requirements of the rule. Specifically, no attempt has been made to show either that the

defendants have been given notice of the request for a hearing or that there are reasons that such

notice should not be required. At such time as plaintiff has a request which meets the

requirements of Rule 65 and Local Rule 65-231, the documents should be presented to the

courtroom clerk of the undersigned. The application will not be set for hearing in its present

form.

DATED: April 24, 2006.

/math0286.tro

Case 2:06-cv-00286-GEB -JFM Document 8 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2