Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00237/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00237-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order; Granting Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion for

Extension of Time; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time as Moot 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237tromisc

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE DALE HALBERT,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPUTY

SHERIFF HERBERT, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0237 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

AND RESTRAINING ORDER;

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

EX PARTE MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME AS MOOT 

(Docket Nos. 24, 28, 42, 50)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the conditions of his confinement while he was a

civil detainee at the Alameda County Jail pending trial proceedings pursuant to

California’s “Sexually Violent Predators Act,” (SVPA) see Cal. Welf & Inst. Code §§

6600 - 6609.3. The Court initially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend as

to eight of the claims and dismissed two claims without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint. On March 29, 2005, the Court ordered service of the amended

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 73 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 The district court cannot properly balance the hardships without taking into

account the hardship, or lack of hardship, to the non-movants. Armstrong v. Mazurek,

94 F.3d 566, 568 (9th Cir. 1996).

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order; Granting Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion for

Extension of Time; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time as Moot 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237tromisc

complaint. Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary/permanent injunction, or in the

alternative a temporary restraining order. Defendants filed an ex parte motion for an

extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. The Court will DENY

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (docket no.

24) without prejudice. The Court will GRANT Defendants’ ex parte request for

extension of time (docket no. 28). The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motions for

extension of time (docket nos. 42, 50) as moot. Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is now submitted. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Preliminary/Permanent Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary/permanent injunction, or in the

alternative a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an

injunction or restraining order to: (1) prevent Defendants from housing Plaintiff in the

Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita Facility, during all future civil commitment proceedings

beginning in May 2005, (2) require Defendants to house Plaintiff in the nearest state,

county or local “secure” mental health facility during all future civil commitment

proceedings; (3) require the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department to transport Plaintiff

from Atascadero State Hospital to the nearest state, county, or local mental health facility,

prior to all future judicial proceedings; and (4) grant any other relief the Court deems

proper, fair or necessary. See Pl.’s Mot. at 3. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that requests for injunctive relief may be based upon

either of two sets of criteria. The “traditional” test requires the movants to: (1) establish a

strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the possibility of irreparable injury to

the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a balance of hardships

favoring the movants1; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public interest. 

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 73 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order; Granting Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion for

Extension of Time; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time as Moot 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237tromisc

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200

(9th Cir. 1980). 

The “alternative” test requires that the movants demonstrate either a combination

of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. See

Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 795 (9th Cir. 1990); Alaska v. Native Village of

Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988); American Motorcyclist Ass’n v. Watt, 714

F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). These two formulations represent two points on a sliding

scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of

success decreases. Diamontiney, 918 F.2d at 795. At the very least, however, the moving

party must show a fair chance of success on the merits. Armstrong v. Mazurek, 94 F.3d

566, 567 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown sufficient facts to establish that

he actually faces irreparable harm. Although the medical treatment provided to Plaintiff

at the county jail may not include the same level of services as provided at the state

hospital, Plaintiff has not shown he is in imminent danger due to any severe medical

condition. Nor has Plaintiff shown his probable success on the merits. While Plaintiff

cites to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004), to

support his motion, the Jones court remanded the action with instructions to allow the

government to demonstrate legitimate, non-punitive interests justifying the conditions on

the detainee awaiting SVPA proceedings, and to show that the restrictions imposed on the

detainee were not excessive in relation to these interests. Id. at 935. Similarly, the

Defendants in the instant action have an opportunity to demonstrate these interests in their

pending motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary/permanent injunction or temporary restraining order (docket no. 24) is

DENIED without prejudice.

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 73 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order; Granting Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion for

Extension of Time; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time as Moot 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237tromisc

B. Motions for Extension of Time

On March 29, 2005, the Court ordered service of the complaint on the Defendants

and directed Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive

motion, or to notify the Court that Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by such a motion within sixty days. On July 25, 2005, summons were issued to

Defendants. On August 25, 2005, Defendants filed an ex parte motion for an extension of

time to file a motion for summary judgment. The Court concludes that Defendants have

shown good cause for such extension. Defendants’ motion for extension of time (docket

no. 28) is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff has filed two motions for an extension of time requesting that the Court

allow him additional time to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment. 

Although the Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the extensions,

Plaintiff timely filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion on February 21, 2006. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions (docket nos. 42, 50) are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff has 

filed a letter with the Court requesting a copy of the March 29, 2005 order of service. 

The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a copy of the March 29, 2005 order. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary/permanent injunction, or in the alternative

a temporary restraining order, (docket no. 24) is DENIED without prejudice.

2. Defendants’ motion for enlargement of time (docket no. 28) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time (docket nos. 42, 50) are DENIED 

as moot because Plaintiff has timely filed his opposition on February 21, 2006. 

4. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a copy of the March 29, 2005 order (docket 

no. 23). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/2306 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 73 Filed 03/24/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order; Granting Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion for

Extension of Time; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time as Moot 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237tromisc

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Lawrence Dale Halbert Sr.

048178-8

Atascadero State Hospital

10333 El Camino Real

P.O. Box 7001 Unit 29

Atascadero, CA 93423-7001

Andrea S. Carlise

Steven C. Wolan

Patton, Wolan, & Boxer

1814 Franklin Street

Suite 501

Oakland, CA 94612-3438

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 73 Filed 03/24/06 Page 5 of 5