Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00225-0/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

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

Plaintiff James Ray Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or 

preliminary injunction, filed February 13, 2020. 

I.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 

status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 

intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 

Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or 

JAMES RAY TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00225-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED

[ECF No. 3]

Case 1:20-cv-00225-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

temporary restraining order] 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 Resources Defense Council, 

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. 

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A party 

seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion 

is unsupported by evidence. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an 

actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 

Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If 

the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in 

question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive 

means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 

A federal court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction over 

the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe 

Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required 

to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating 

the time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The Court may not attempt to 

determine the rights of persons not before it. See Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 

234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983). 

“Plaintiff alleges that by merging the Sensitive Needs prisoners with the General Population 

prisoners at the institution he is confined is a ‘failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks 

by other inmates’ and from ‘dangerous conditions’ which is a clear violation of the Eighth 

Case 1:20-cv-00225-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Amendment.” (Mot. at 5, ECF No. 3.)1 Plaintiff contends a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction are necessary to prevent irreparable injury. Plaintiff’s request for a temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction should be denied. 

As an initial matter, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that CDCR’s Inmate Locator 

system located at http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov reflects that Plaintiff is now housed at California 

City Correctional Facility.

2

 Therefore, since Plaintiff is no longer housed at Avenal State Prison, and 

there is no evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of returning to Avenal 

State Prison, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot in light of his transfer. Johnson v. Moore, 

948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 

n.5 (9th Cir. 2007).

 Further, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a specific threat of harm to him. Plaintiff declares that 

he is a general population inmate and does not want to put himself in a situation where he may have to 

defend himself. Plaintiff further declares that on January 7, 2019 and March 25, 2019, he received a 

rules violation report because he refused to be assigned to a merged yard, which implies that Plaintiff 

has not been housed in the yards subject to the merger. Plaintiff also submits the declaration of Kim 

McGill, Organizer of the Youth Justice Coalition, who declares that the merging of the sensitive needs 

yards and general population will (1) increase “incidents of violence and conflict”; (2) “[j]eopardizes 

the milestones and growth people have worked so diligently to obtain”; (3) [w]ill lead to longer 

sentences and increased incarceration costs, thus contributing to overcrowding that a federal law suit, 

AB 109 realignment and other changes in law and policies were intended to address”; and (4) 

“[u]ndermines efforts made through changes in state law to reduce overcrowding, increase fairness in 

sentencing, and reduce violence through greater access to rehabilitative programming and increased 

hope for release....” (Mot. at 14, ECF No. 3.) However, Plaintiff fails to present specific factual 

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

2 The Court may take judicial notice of public information stored on the CDCR inmate locator website. See In re Yahoo 

Mail Litig., 7 F.Supp.3d 1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (court may take judicial notice of information on “publicly 

accessible websites” not subject to reasonable dispute); Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d 

1153, 1155 fn.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records). 

Case 1:20-cv-00225-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

details to demonstrate that there is a particular threat to him by the merger. Moreover, Plaintiff’s 

conclusory allegations in the complaint relating to violent incidents in the past do not demonstrate that 

there is a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff or that prison officials are being deliberately indifferent 

to his safety. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied. 

II.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a District 

Judge to this action.

Further, for the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s 

motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction be denied. 

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00225-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 02/24/20 Page 4 of 4