Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01050-4/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

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MINA BESHARA; FNU LUU; DAVID 

ROBLESS; AUDRA KING; JOSH 

BERGER; FNU STEVEN; REBECCA 

KORNBLUSH,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01050-HBK (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND 

FOR INJUNCTION OR RESTRAINING ORDER1

(Doc. Nos. 11, 12, and 18)

THIRTY DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

CLERK TO ASSIGN TO DISTRICT JUDGE 

Before the Court are several motions for temporary restraining orders and one motion for 

an injunction or a restraining order, filed on February 12, 2021, February 16, 2021, and most 

recently on April 12, 2021, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, and 18). While the allegations in 

each motion vary slightly, generally Plaintiff seeks a temporary or preliminary injunctive relief to 

enjoin several correctional officials from working in his assigned unit at Coalinga State Hospital.

(See generally Doc. No. 11 at 1). For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends 

each of the motions be denied. 

1 The undersigned submits these factual findings and recommendations to the District Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 8
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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jeffrey E. Walker, a civil detainee, initiated this action by filing a pro se 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint on July 30, 2020, while detained at the Coalinga State Hospital. (Doc. 

No. 1). The then-assigned magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed as a 

pauper. (Doc. No. 4). 

Turning to Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining order, or a preliminary injunction, 

on February 12, 2021, the court initially reviewed Plaintiff’s first and second motions, and issued 

an order on February 23, 2021. (Doc. No. 14). Noting the allegations of suicide, danger of death, 

or imminent serious harm to themselves or others set forth in Plaintiff’s first and second motions, 

the court directed the clerk to send a copy of the pleadings to the appropriate institutional officials 

at Coalinga State Hospital for use as the officials deemed appropriate. (Doc. No. 14). As a result 

of the notice provided to officials on or about February 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed his motion for 

clarification seeking expedited review on March 5, 2021, mainly addressing the court’s order.

(Doc. No. 15). As previously stated, the court addresses Plaintiff’s March 5 motion by separate 

order.

A. The Complaint

In the complaint, Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Mina Beshara; (2) FNU 

Luu; (3) David Robles; (4) Audra King; (5) Josh Berer; (6) FNU Steven; and (7) Rebecca 

Kornbluh; (8) Treatment Team John and Jane Does; (9) Involuntary Medical Hearing John and 

Jane Does November- 2016; (10) Involuntarily Medical Hearing John and Jane Does- December 

2016; and (11) David Avilla. (Id. at 1-2). 

Plaintiff appears to have initiated this action as a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital, 

where he is receiving mental health treatment. (See generally Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff names the 

following defendants: (1) Mina Beshara; (2) FNU Luu; (3) David Robless; (4) Audra King; (5) 

Josh Berer; (6) FNU Steven; and (7) Rebecca Kornbluh; (8) Treatment Team John and Jane Does; 

(9) Involuntary Medical Hearing John and Jane Does November- 2016; (10) Involuntarily 

Medical Hearing John and Jane Does- December 2016; and (11) David Avilla. (Id. at 1-2). All 

claims appear to stem from incidents Plaintiff alleges occurred in 2016, approximately four years 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 8
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

prior to when plaintiff initiated this action, but were ongoing events during that time. (See 

generally Id.). The complaint is comprised of 34 pages and includes 103 separate number 

averments. The averments are disjointed, rambling and confusing and appear in a diary-like 

fashion detailing various unrelated incidents plaintiff experienced at different points in time with 

different staff, or other patients, at Coalinga State Hospital. 

Although far from the model of clarity, it appears the incidents giving rise to the cause of 

action stem from Plaintiff being forcefully medicated, when defendants instead could have 

housed Plaintiff in a single cell, or being subjected to direct line of sight observations by male 

officials around-the-clock. (Complaint at 5-7, 10, 17) (alleging Plaintiff “could not get any sleep”

with male staff observing him). Plaintiff claims defendants knew he “had a history of flash backs 

and reoccurring remembrance of past sexual abuse if left in certain predicaments resulting in 

Plaintiff being taken out to the hospitals on numerous occasions for sexual exams.” (Id. at 6). 

Plaintiff claims that he has suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder from a previous sexual 

assault in prison, which “triggers” him when he has male staff watching him, or when he sees 

Hispanic residents or staff, or gay staff, and causes him to experience anxiety attacks, chest pains, 

paranoia and results in him being administered psychotropic drugs against his will or taken to 

outside hospitals for examinations. (Id. at 7, 15). Plaintiff acknowledges that when he was 

housed in a single cell, he was not triggered and did not require forced medication, or to be 

transported for rape examinations, for a three-year period. (Id. at 20). Plaintiff includes details of 

his counseling sessions or “panel” interviews in his Complaint, admitting that a state court order 

required that he be involuntarily medicated, and that has a diagnosis of paranoia, bi-polar disorder 

and other mental health issues. (Id. at 23-25). As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and 

any other relief the Court deems appropriate. (Id. at 31).

B. The Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions

The allegations in Plaintiff’s first motion for a temporary restraining order are those 

alleged in the Complaint. In the first motion, Plaintiff asks that the court issue a restraining order 

to keep the following officials away from his assigned unit number 9: (1) David Robles; (2) Ed 

Fernandez; (3) Tomas Cervantes; (4) Arseniz Guiterez, who Plaintiff identifies as the Unit 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/27/21 Page 3 of 8
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

Supervisor; (5) David Avila; (6) Jason Montijo; (7) Sal Solano; (8) “Dr. . . Psychiatris [sic] from 

any contact as Dr. in Unit #9 or at all”; (9) “Steven G. Nurse Unit #9”; and (10) Jose Loeza. 

(Doc. No. 11 at 1). In the most recent motion, Plaintiff adds another three individuals to the 

proposed “no-contact list” including: (10) Christ Beller; (11) Rudy Chavez; and (12) Rudy Price. 

(Doc. No. 18 at 1). 

In pertinent part, Plaintiff claims he has a “documented mental health history of P.T.S.D. 

not to be placed with certain people who abused me or any situations like the [line of sight] with 

males from past prison sex abuse w[h]ich could trigger me to become violent or cause reoccurrence of those memories w[h]ich is cruel and unusual punishment.” (Doc. No. 11 at 3). He 

further contends that he is “high risk medical with high blood pressure, an anxiety attack could 

kill [him].” (Id.). In his second and third motions, Plaintiff alleges that certain defendants have

threatened him with retaliation for initiating a lawsuit against him, but not specify the nature of 

the retaliation. (Doc. No. 12 at 4; Doc. No. 18 at 1). Plaintiff states that initiating the instant 

action against defendants has caused him “panic” as he remembers “past prison abuse, sexual 

assault, excessive force.” (Id.). Plaintiff acknowledges his P.T.S.D “could be a recipe for a 

danger” if placed in a situation with the abuser. (Id.). And, again contends, that he has high blood 

pressure, so an anxiety attack could kill him. (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff is concerned his inmate job 

may be taken away from him in retaliation for filing the instant action. (Doc. No 18 at 1-6).

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and restraining orders, and 

requires that a motion for temporary restraining order include “specific facts in an affidavit or a 

verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate, and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will 

result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as well as written 

certification from the movant’s attorney stating “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons 

why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary 

injunctions, with the exception that preliminary injunctions require notice to the adverse party. 

See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1126 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/27/21 Page 4 of 8
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

(E.D. Ca. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Local Rule 231, however, requires notice for 

temporary restraining orders as well, “[e]xcept in the most extraordinary of circumstances,” and 

the court considers whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary 

injunction at an earlier date. L.R 231 (a)-(b) (E.D. Ca. 2019). A temporary restraining order 

“should be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and 

preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” 

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 

423, 439 (1974). 

A temporary restraining order, is “an extraordinary remedy” and may be issued only if 

Plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in 

the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his/her favor; (4) that an 

injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

Plaintiff bears the burden of clearly satisfying all four prongs. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). A TRO will not issue if Plaintiff merely shows 

irreparable harm is possible – a showing of likelihood is required. Id. at 1131.

The injunctive relief an applicant requests must relate to the claims brought in the 

complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 

2015) (“When a Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 

court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Absent a nexus between the injury 

claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the court lacks the authority to grant Plaintiff

any relief. Id. at 636.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 

litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 

“[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 

correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 

necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Villery v. California Dep't of Corr., 

2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the PLRA 

places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/27/21 Page 5 of 8
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

and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the 

bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that 

binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 

the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). The court’s jurisdiction is “limited 

to the parties in this action” and the pendency of an action “does not give the Court jurisdiction 

over prison officials in general or over the conditions of an inmate's confinement unrelated to the 

claims before it.” Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020). If a 

prisoner has been transferred, any sought injunctive relief against the previous facility becomes 

moot if the prisoner “has demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning to [the prison].” 

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991); Florence v. Kernan, 813 F. App'x 325, 326 

(9th Cir. 2020). Finally, state governments have “traditionally been granted the widest latitude in 

the dispatch of [their] own internal affairs.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423, U.S. 362, 378 (1976) (citations 

omitted). This deference applies even more strongly when the court is asked to involve itself in 

the administrative decisions of a prison. See Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987); Sandin v. 

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motions, the court does not find that Plaintiff has satisfied his 

burden to show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to him before 

officials at Coalinga State Hospital can be heard, thus precluding a temporary restraining order 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and Local Rule 231(a). Further, Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the 

requisite four elements necessary for issuance of a temporary restraining order, or a preliminary 

injunction. 

Generally, Plaintiff’s motions seek an order from the court directing which employees of 

Coalinga State Hospital can enter Plaintiff’s assigned housing unit. Supra at 3-4. Such an order 

would be intrusive into the daily operations at Coalinga State Hospital and precisely those

restrained by case law. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546 (1979) (maintaining institutional 

security and preserving internal order and discipline are central to all other corrections goals). 

While such relief may be necessary in extraordinary cases, Plaintiff has not satisfied the burden 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/27/21 Page 6 of 8
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

here, especially when considering the allegations in the motions and the complaint wherein 

Plaintiff acknowledges at an unspecified time, he became argumentative with staff and was 

within arm’s length. Supra at 3 (citing Doc. No. 1 at 8). 

Further, Plaintiff does not appear likely to succeed on his complaint. Liberally construed, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to allege that the failure to house plaintiff in a single cell and 

instead being placed on direct line of sight observation caused him to experience P.T.S.D., which

int turn resulted in him being forced medication. (See generally Doc. No. 1). Due to numerous 

deficiencies in the Complaint, the court has issued a § 1915A screening order directing plaintiff to 

file an amended complaint. The allegations in plaintiff’s motions are directed at preventing 

retaliatory acts from occurring based on the filing of the instant lawsuit. The allegations in all 

motions are directed to which staff can enter Plaintiff’s dorm in attempt to restrict nearly a dozen 

staff’s access to Plaintiff’s dormitory area. Thus, the allegations in the motions are not directly 

related to the issues in the complaint. 

Plaintiff does not provide specific facts about how he will suffer immediate or irreparable 

harm. Plaintiff does not allege that he has been physically harmed, instead he repeatedly alleges 

he suffers from P.T.S.D and does best when housed in a single dormitory. Similarly, Plaintiff’s 

motion wholly fails to address whether the balance of equities and the public interest favor 

granting injunctive relief, especially when they tip in favor of state prison officials and internal 

affairs such as more than a dozen staff employment assignments. Nor does Plaintiff certify in 

writing what efforts were made to serve the adverse party with notice, or why notice should be 

excused. Based on the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district court adopt 

these findings and recommendations and deny Plaintiff’s motions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

It is further RECOMMENDED:

Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (Doc. 

Nos. 11, 12, 18) be DENIED.

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/27/21 Page 7 of 8
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

8

NOTICE TO PARTIES

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are 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: May 27, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 23 Filed 05/27/21 Page 8 of 8