Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00249/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00249-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

ALLAN FLETCHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLENDENIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00249-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 8)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Allan Fletcher (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to 

California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners 

within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 

(9th Cir. 2000).

On March 24, 2022, the Court screened the complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file a 

first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 9.)

///

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 6
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

II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and order 

to show cause re: preliminary injunction, filed March 21, 2022. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff states that 

he requests a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate 

Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and Equal Protection 

Clause. Plaintiff includes a proposed temporary restraining order that orders Defendants to 

undertake the following:

1. Use all authority and procedures necessary under the law, including Governor 

Newsom’s Executive Order (No. N-35-20), to expeditiously assess for transfer 

or discharge DSH-Coalinga patients to a less restrictive and congregate setting 

to alleviate crowded conditions;

2. Identify all patients vulnerable and at high risk to infection or reinfection with 

COVID-19 and its variants due to underlying medical conditions, utilizing 

current CDC Guidelines, and provide the court with a list of these patients;

3. Provide updates, no less frequently than monthly, to the Court concerning the 

transfer from DSH-Coalinga or discharge, of patients who are at high risk and 

medically vulnerable;

4. Immediately require all Level of Care (LOC) staff at DSH-C when submitting 

the Rapid Antigen Test, to wait the results prior to entry to the Secured 

Treatment Area (STA) and comingling with patients on housing units;

5. Immediately require all Level of Care (LOC) staff at DSH-C to desist from 

working overtime, or being directed, to “float” from quarantined to nonquarantined patient housing units with a sixteen (16) hour period;

6. Immediately provide to all DSH-Coalinga patients the N-95 face mask 

(without removal of any parts or alterations) to reduce COVID-19 exposure; 

and ensure that all DSH-C staff working the Secured Treatment Areas of 

patient housing, be mandated to properly wear and be completely garbed with 

the Personal Protective Equipment, to include: face shield, N-95 mask, latex 

gloves, surgical gown, and shoe coverings, without parts removed or items 

altered;

7. Immediately require that all LOC staff at DSH-C shall on each shift sanitize 

all high-touch areas such as telephones, tables, chairs, door knobs, hand rails, 

counter tops, microwave, sinks, refrigerator, ice-machine, wheelchairs, 

walkers, Vitals machines, etc., and cleaning shall include sweeping, mopping 

of common areas and hallways, removal of trash, and cleaning and sanitizing 

patient restrooms and showers on a daily basis;

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 6
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

8. Immediately restore access to all previously suspended adjunct sex-offender 

treatment groups, including alternative treatment options such as independent 

study and out-patient treatment; to also include providing textbooks and 

qualified licensed facilitators, as well as a realistic treatment plan highlighting 

a viable pathway to release; and, ensuring all patients have access to no less 

than two hours twice a week for SOTP treatment, and no less than two (2) 

hours per adjunct group;

(ECF No. 8, pp. 31–32 (unedited text).)

The proposed temporary restraining order further provides:

A. This Court appoint an independent monitor, or special master, to ensure 

compliance with the Court’s order, and provide that the monitor be given 

access to units, to transfer or discharge discussions and documents, 

confidential communications with Plaintiff and others similarly situated at 

DSH-Coalinga, to report on: 1) the adequacy of Defendants’ actions to 

effectuate safe transfer or discharge of patients, and 2) the adequacy of 

conditions of confinement, policies, practices and precautions taken to ensure 

the health, safety, and medical wellbeing of all patients and staff of the 

facility;

B. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully 

complied with the within orders of the Court, and there is a reasonable 

assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future absent the 

Court’s continuing jurisdiction;

C. It is further ordered that the Temporary Restraining Order shall expire on:

And is further ordered that copies of the complaint, motion, declarations, 

exhibits, and memorandum of points and authorities, and this order to show 

cause and temporary restraining order be served on all parties on:

Not later than:

D. Grant any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

(Id. at 32–33 (unedited text).)

The Court construes the request as a motion for preliminary injunction.

A. Legal Standards

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/25/22 Page 3 of 6
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

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 

may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 

omitted).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 

464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 

power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 

the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 

of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right.”

Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 

in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 

U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

B. Discussion

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 

Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 

complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

As explained above, the Court did not find that the complaint stated any cognizable 

claims. As Plaintiff has not yet filed a first amended complaint for screening, the Court cannot 

find that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, no defendant has 

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/25/22 Page 4 of 6
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

been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time 

lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants or any other staff at the Department of State Hospitals 

or DSH-Coalinga.

Finally, although Plaintiff has set forth serious allegations regarding the actions of 

defendants named in this lawsuit, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any relief sought is 

“narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, 

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” See 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). In his motion, Plaintiff is requesting that the Court interfere with the 

Department of State Hospitals’ administration in determining the housing and transfer of patients, 

staffing assignments, and patient programming, as well as to appoint a special master to monitor 

DSH’s compliance with such orders. Such relief cannot be granted. Although the Court 

understands that Plaintiff is raising serious allegations regarding possible violations of Plaintiff’s 

rights, and the rights of other patients at DSH-Coalinga, the relief requested here is not the least 

intrusive means necessary to correct any potential violation.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff is requesting relief on behalf of other civil detainees 

by bringing this action as a purported class action. As discussed in the Court’s screening order, 

Plaintiff may not represent other civil detainees, and therefore may not request relief on behalf of 

all civil detainees housed in DSH facilities or housed at DSH-Coalinga. See Russel v. United 

States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962).

III. Order and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 

District Judge to this action.

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary 

restraining order, (ECF No. 8), be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendation 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)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 

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

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/25/22 Page 5 of 6
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

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 10 Filed 03/25/22 Page 6 of 6