Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00055-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINA CRAWFORD,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00055-MJS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF NO. 13)

Plaintiff Archie Cranford, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 15, 2014. (ECF No. 

1.) On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order 

prohibiting Defendant Crawford from coming within 50,000 feet of him and mandating 

that Plaintiff remain in his current housing location. (ECF No. 13.)

The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a 

preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 

240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), and “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary 

remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 

555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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, 

Case 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS Document 23 Filed 08/06/14 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

27

28

2

and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 

may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

The Court has determined that Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, are sufficient 

to state a claim. (ECF No. 14.) However, the present motion does not make a clear 

showing that Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary relief. Plaintiff’s allegations do not 

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, a 

balance of equities in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, filed on March 17, 

2014, is HEREBY DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Local Rule 231; Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS Document 23 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 2