Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01472/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01472-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE SARGENT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1472 GGH P

vs.

P. STATTI, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On January 6, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO)

alleging that defendants were the agents of an “unprovoked physical assault” upon him after he

had been removed from his cell at High Desert State Prison to be transferred to the central

treatment clinic on December 2, 2009. See TRO Motion (docket # 45), pp. 1-2. Plaintiff

contends that the defendants did not write up a disciplinary action or informational chrono

regarding this alleged incident and clinic medical staff “refused to author a body sheet upon

plaintiff’s request,” wherein plaintiff evidently sought to have documented injuries he states that

he sustained as a result of the attack, including bruised ribs, right shoulder lacerations, and a

contusion over his left eye. Id., at 2. Plaintiff also claims to have been in waist chains when the

alleged attack occurred. Id. Plaintiff further alleges, without specifying when it occurred or any

other details, that all of his personal property, including his legal files, have been destroyed as a

Case 2:09-cv-01472-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/14/10 Page 1 of 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

 Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned (dkt # 6). The court, by 1

Order filed on October 30, 2009 (dkt # 43), has directed service of plaintiff’s amended complaint

upon defendants but they have not as yet appeared in this action. 

2

result of his having brought, presumably, the instant action. Id. In addition, plaintiff claims to

have been held in administrative segregation since September 30, 2008, without any pending

disciplinary action or charges against him. Id. Plaintiff goes on to claim that he has been denied

meaningful access to an adequate law library, has been physically and emotionally abused “in a

torturous manner,” has recently had a ten-year prison sentence arbitrarily imposed upon him, all as

forms of retaliation. Id., at 3. The forms of relief that plaintiff seeks as a result of his wideranging, insufficiently specific, allegations include an injunction keeping defendant McDonald,

HDSP warden, and all subordinate prison officials 500 feet from plaintiff; an order to an

individual, Timothy Lockwood, whom plaintiff identifies as a defendant but who is not a

defendant in this action, to cooperate in placing plaintiff immediately in the Federal Witness

Protection Program; and an order for an independent federal review of recent, unspecified parole

board findings. 

A previous motion for immediate injunctive relief brought by plaintiff was denied

as moot, by Order filed on September 17, 2009 (dkt # 36), when after alleging an imminent threat

of an attack by his cellmate, plaintiff was subsequently moved and placed in a single cell in a

different building. The court has previously noted that plaintiff has alleged his status as a 1

“special interest” inmate who has been in both federal and state custody due to safety concerns

arising from plaintiff’s assistance in the prosecution of Pelican Bay State Prison staff. Dkt # 23,

p. 1. 

TRO 

The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo

pending a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a

temporary restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the

Case 2:09-cv-01472-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 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

 Although plaintiff proceeds without counsel, he should nevertheless provide any efforts 2

he made to provide notice to defendants and any reasons why notice to defendants should not be

required.

3

hearing on a preliminary injunction. It is apparent, however, that requests for temporary

restraining orders which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general

standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v.

Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch.

Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting);

Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). To the extent that

this purports to be an ex parte motion for a TRO without notice, plaintiff has been previously

informed that there are stringent requirements to be imposed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 for issuance

of such an order, which, once again, plaintiff clearly has not met. Reno Air Racing Ass’n., Inc. v.

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9 Cir. 2006). Rule 65(b) permits issuance of a TRO without th

“notice to the adverse party or its attorney, only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified

complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury...will result to the movant before the

adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any

efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” 2

Plaintiff’s motion is inadequate because, in addition to overreaching in the forms

of relief that he seeks and including requests for relief that do not appear to relate to the alleged

attack which, apparently, was the initial basis for the motion, he fails to provide adequate

information for the court to order any form of relief. Plaintiff does not sufficiently identify the

circumstances of his attack, i.e., by whom he was actually attacked and how he knows that any

defendant (none of whom he specifies) could have been the agency of any such assault. 

Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm. Goldies' Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior

Court of the State of California, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). A presently existing actual

threat must be shown, although the injury need not be certain to occur. See 11 C. Wright & A.

Case 2:09-cv-01472-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 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

4

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2848 (1973). 

Moreover, plaintiff undermines his TRO request by piggybacking allegations that

appear to have no relation to the attack to which he claims to have been subject. Plaintiff’s

request for a TRO will be denied without prejudice to plaintiff’s providing additional information

in support of his request by motion/affidavit. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 

order, filed on January 6, 2010 (dkt # 45), is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: January 14, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

sarg1472.ord(2)

Case 2:09-cv-01472-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/14/10 Page 4 of 4