Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01259-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM LYLE NIBLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-CV-01259-DJC-CSK-PS

ORDER & FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION 

FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF No 17)

Plaintiff William Lyle Nible brings a pro se First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Jeffrey 

Macomber, the Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”); Tommee Dorsey, a Parole Agent with CDCR; Jessika Richardson, a 

Supervising Officer with the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision 

(“ICAOS”); Allison Woodruff; Jason Johnson, the Director of ICAOS; Stephenie Reyes;

Mr. St. Louis, a Supervisor at Placer County Division of Adult Parole Operations 

(“DAPO”); Broomfield, the Warden at San Quentin Prison; Mr. Lugar, a Supervisor at 

Placer County DAPO); H. Moseley; and Julie Raskin-Lee (together, “Defendants”). See 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 18 Filed 10/15/24 Page 1 of 7
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

FAC (ECF No. 11).

1 Plaintiff files a renewed emergency preliminary injunction and 

temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendants, asking that the Court enjoin

Defendants from enforcing several allegedly unconstitutional conditions of parole. Pl. 

Emergency Mot. No. 2 (ECF No. 17).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends DENYING Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Temporary Restraining Order, 

and providing Plaintiff with the opportunity to re-file the motion and request a hearing 

after Plaintiff provides notice to all Defendants and after briefing by both sides.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

After serving twenty-five years in prison, Plaintiff was found suitable for release on 

parole on February 15, 2023, and was subsequently released on June 27, 2023. Pl.

Emergency Mot. No. 2 (ECF No. 17-2 at 2); William Lyle Nible Decl. ¶ 7 (ECF No. 17-3 

at 2). After learning of his impending release, Plaintiff requested an interstate transfer to 

Missouri in accordance with ICAOS, which was refused. Nible Decl. ¶ 5. After his 

release, plaintiff was placed in Los Angeles County, and his requests to transfer to

Sacramento County and Missouri were also refused. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9; FAC at 11-12. Plaintiff 

complains that he was unconstitutionally required to wear a GPS ankle monitoring 

device, attend sex offender treatment program classes, and that he had allegedly 

unconstitutional conditions of parole placed on him. FAC at 11,14; see Pl. Emergency 

Mot. No. 2 (ECF No. 17-2 at 3). Plaintiff further alleges various violations of his 

constitutional rights as a result of the parole conditions Defendants imposed, including 

“Constitutionally protected rights, Due Process and Equal Protection, [and] Double 

Jeopardy.” FAC at 10. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the instant 

request for preliminary injunctive relief. See id. at 18.

/ / /

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 18 Filed 10/15/24 Page 2 of 7
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

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his initial complaint concurrently with his first

Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and TRO. (ECF No. 2.) That motion was 

denied for failing to comply with Local Rule 231 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65

where Plaintiff failed to provide notice to the affected parties. See 5/10/2024 Order 

Denying Mot. for Emergency Prelim. Inj. at 3-4 (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff filed his FAC on 

July 1, 2024. See FAC. Plaintiff then requested leave to file a supplemental complaint to 

add a new defendant. (ECF No. 13.) The Court denied this motion without prejudice for 

failing to comply with Local Rule 220 where Plaintiff did not submit a new proposed 

pleading and did not restate the allegations against the other current defendants. 

8/21/2024 Order at 2 (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff also filed a motion for an extension of time 

to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants (ECF No. 14), which the Court 

granted, extending the service deadline until October 20, 2024.2 8/21/2024 Order at 4. 

Defendant Moseley filed an answer to Plaintiff’s FAC on September 17, 2024. (ECF No. 

16.) 

On October 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed his second Motion for Emergency Preliminary 

Injunctive Relief and a TRO. See Pl. Emergency Mot. No. 2.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Second TRO Motion is Procedurally Deficient

Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order and an emergency preliminary 

injunction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 against all Defendants.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) permits the court to issue a TRO without 

notice to the adverse party only if (1) specific facts in the affidavit or underlying pleading 

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the 

opposing party may be heard; and (2) the movant certifies in writing efforts made to give 

notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). This 

2 From a review of the docket, it does not appear that Plaintiff has served any other 

Defendant besides Moseley.

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 18 Filed 10/15/24 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Court’s Local Rules also set forth certain procedural mandates for a temporary 

restraining order to issue, including that the movant provide the following documents: 

(1) a complaint; (2) a motion for temporary restraining order; (3) a brief on the relevant 

legal issues; (4) an affidavit to support the existence of irreparable harm; (5) an affidavit 

detailing the notice or efforts undertaken or showing good cause why notice should not 

be given; (6) a proposed temporary restraining order and provision for bond; (7) a 

proposed order with blank for fixing time and date for a hearing; and (8) where a 

temporary restraining order is requested ex parte, the proposed order should also notify 

the affected parties of the right to apply to the Court for modification or dissolution on two 

(2) days’ notice or such shorter notice as the Court may allow. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 

231(c). 

Like his first TRO motion, Plaintiff’s second TRO motion is procedurally deficient 

because Plaintiff has not complied with the requirement to provide notice to all affected 

parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(a) & 231(c)(5). This is 

concerning because in the May 10, 2024 Order denying Plaintiff’s first TRO request, the 

Court expressly found that Plaintiff failed to provide proper notice of Plaintiff’s emergency 

request to affected parties. See 5/10/2024 Order at 3-4. Like his first TRO motion, 

Plaintiff has not provided any details regarding whether he has provided actual notice, 

whether he tried to use reasonable efforts, or whether he should not be required to 

provide notice. There is no reference in Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff’s declaration, or the 

docket regarding any such efforts. See Pl. Emergency Mot. No. 2 (ECF No. 17); Nible 

Decl. (ECF No. 17-3 at 2); Docket. Plaintiff’s motion includes an attachment titled “Notice 

of Motion for Injunction,” which states, in relevant part: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that [on 

a date and time to be determined], or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, 

[plaintiff], will move this Court for an order mandating that the Department of Corrections, 

parole division cease and desist from enforcing unconstitutional directives upon the 

plaintiff.” Pl. Notice (ECF No. 17-1). However, this document is not addressed to anyone 

and there is no indication that Plaintiff provided this notice to any Defendant. See id.; Pl. 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 18 Filed 10/15/24 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Emergency Mot. No. 2; Docket.

It appears that only one defendant has been served with the summons and the

FAC so far as only one defendant has made an appearance in this action and 

responded to the FAC. See Docket. Defendant Moseley,

3 who is represented by 

counsel, has filed an answer to the FAC. Moseley Answer. As a result, Defendant 

Moseley has received actual notice of Plaintiff’s second TRO through the ECF filing 

system. Though it appears that Plaintiff failed to properly notify Defendant Moseley of 

this second TRO, Defendant Moseley has received actual notice of the second TRO. 

Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 231(c)(5) because 

he did not make efforts to provide notice of his motion to the remaining Defendants

Macomber, Dorsey, Richardson, Woodruff, Johnson, Reyes, St. Louis, Broomfield, 

Lugar, and Raskin-Lee, and did not provide reasons why notice on these defendants 

should not be required. See Pl. Emergency Mot. No. 2; Nible Decl. Courts regularly deny 

TROs for failing to comply with the stringent requirements of Rule 65(b)(1), including 

those sought by pro se plaintiffs. See Reno Air Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 

1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (“courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying 

the issuance of an ex parte TRO”); Abdel-Malak v. Doe, 2020 WL 5775818, at *1 (C.D. 

Cal. Feb. 20, 2020) (denying TRO sought by pro se plaintiff for failure to satisfy Rule

65(b)’s “strict requirements”); Seymour v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 2010 WL 3385994, at *1 

(S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010) (same); Roman v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 3489962, at 

*1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 31, 2010) (same). In addition, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 

Local Rules’ requirements for TROs is sufficient justification to deny the motion.4 See

Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial 

of a motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district 

3 The Docket spells Defendant’s name “Mosley,” but defendant’s answer spells the 

name “Moseley.” The Court uses the correct spelling of “Moseley.”

4 In addition, Plaintiff did not submit the proposed orders required by Local Rule 

231(c)(6)-(8) or the TRO Checklist.

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 18 Filed 10/15/24 Page 5 of 7
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

6

court’s discretion.”).

The Court therefore recommends denial of this second TRO motion based on 

these procedural deficiencies.

B. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

Included with Plaintiff’s TRO is his request that the Court take judicial notice of 

“the fact that the Department of Corrections, Parole Division, is making false and 

misleading statements intentionally concerning Plaintiff’s convictions.” (ECF No. 17-5 at 

2.) A court may take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute” 

because it “is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction” or “can be 

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Here, the asserted fact is neither generally known nor 

can it be accurately or readily determined. See Peralta v. Swetalla, 2022 WL 783014, at 

*3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (ECF No. 17-5) is 

DENIED.

It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 17) be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 

reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 18 Filed 10/15/24 Page 6 of 7
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

7

455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 15, 2024

5, nibl1259.24 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 18 Filed 10/15/24 Page 7 of 7