Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-15/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-0843 JLT SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Docs. 44, 47)

Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights in this action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks a temporary restraining order, asserting that he fears 

for his safety since filing this action, correctional officers beat him, and a transfer to another 

facility was not permitted despite his eligibility. (Doc. 47.)

The magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to demonstrate injunctive relief was 

appropriate in this action. (Doc. 47 at 3-5.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s motion 

“addresses conduct that is not a subject of this action, and therefore fails to demonstrate either a 

likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question on the merits.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate 

judge observed that though Plaintiff reported “he was previously ‘beaten’ by correctional officers, 

but he does not provide any specific facts beyond speculation or conjecture that would 

demonstrate he is in danger of suffering imminent or irreparable harm.” (Id. at 4.) The 

magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff also failed to show “that the balance of equities tips in 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 57 Filed 05/08/24 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

his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 

recommended the Court deny the motion. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff 

again asserts that he was beating by unidentified officers following the filing of this action, and 

reiterates his fear that if he leaves his cell, he “would be in immediate danger.” (Id. at 1.) 

Importantly, however, Plaintiff does not address the findings of the magistrate judge that his 

assertions are not tethered to the claims raised in his complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff’s generalized 

fear for his safety is insufficient to support his request for injunctive relief. See, e.g., Goldie's 

Bookstore v. Superior Court of State of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Speculative 

injury does not constitute irreparable injury”); see also Bradford v. Jordan, 2018 WL 11328113, 

at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) (“Moreover, although Plaintiff alleges instances of harm suffered 

from prison officials, Plaintiff's speculative fear of a conspiracy to murder him by nearly 40 

individuals does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary 

injunction”).

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court 

ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 8, 2024 (Doc. 47) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 44) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 57 Filed 05/08/24 Page 2 of 2