Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL WARNER

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-1146-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DENY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF No. 46)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 10) This action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. (ECF No. 10). 

Plaintiff’s claims arose while he was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison

(PVSP). He has since been transferred to California Health Care Facility in Stockton

(DSH Stockton).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 22, 2014 motion for a temporary 

restraining order. (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff seeks the following three types of relief: (1) a 

“temporary injunction enjoining the defendants to1affect [sic] the prompt transfer to a 

State Hospital for further treatment at the current level of care;” (2) to “cease in the 

practice of willfully isolating the plaintiff from contact with other patients;” and (3) “to 

cease imposing policies and practices designed and intended to subvert plaintiff’s ability 

 

1

Plaintiff does not make clear whether he would like the court to enjoin the prison from transferring him or 

require him to be transferred.

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 52 Filed 02/09/15 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

27

28

2

to gain assistance from other patients in obtaining affidavits attesting to [the] veracity of 

contention[s] declared herein....”

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before 

a preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed 

merely to prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. 

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 65, a temporary restraining order may be granted only if “specific facts in an 

affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard 

for a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 

Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary 

and drastic remedy, never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90

(2008) (citations omitted). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1)

that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 

the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4)

that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 

7, 20 (2008).

Although the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue directly, courts in other 

jurisdictions have held that a plaintiff must also show “a relationship between the injury 

claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Little v. Jones , 

607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010)(quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 

(8th Cir. 1994)); Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 299-300 (6th Cir. 2010); World Wide 

Rush, LLC v. Los Angeles, 563 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Similarly, a

motion for injunctive relief must be denied if it is based on conduct not alleged in the 

underlying complaint. See 389 Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 52 Filed 02/09/15 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

27

28

3

1999)(no error in failing to consider unpleaded claim); Ins. Co. of N. America v. Moore, 

783 F.2d 1326, 1328 (9th Cir. 1986)(no error in denying relief for unpleaded cause of 

action). In addition, the relief that a preliminary injunction grants must be “of the same 

character as that which may be granted finally” and may not deal “with a matter lying 

wholly outside the issues in the suit.” De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 

212, 220 (1945); cf. Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1084 (9th Cir. 

2009)(concluding that preliminary injunction at issue did not deal with a wholly unrelated 

matter). Thus, an inmate’s “new assertions of mistreatment, entirely different from the 

mistreatment alleged” in the complaint, “occur[ing] in a different prison and [perpetrated]

by different prison employees,” cannot form the basis of a preliminary injunction. Mitchell 

v. Haviland, No. 2:09-cv-3012 WL 458218, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014).

III. ANALYSIS

Here, the Court need not and shall not analyze the Winter factors because 

Plaintiff has not made the threshold showing that the relief he seeks is related to the 

conduct alleged in his amended complaint. In fact, the relief he requests this Court to 

order – a transfer, a different custody classification, and a change in policy that would a 

allow him to take affidavits from fellow inmates in support of these requests – has no 

connection to his underlying failure to protect claim. 

Moreover, the relief Plaintiff seeks cannot be granted by defendants in this action. 

Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at PVSP, where the conduct giving rise to his failure to 

protect claim allegedly occurred. Defendants are officials at PVSP, and apparently have 

no control over Plaintiff’s transfer to or from, or classification at, DSH Stockton. They 

also presumably lack power to change the DSH Stockton “policies and practices” that 

are allegedly preventing Plaintiff from obtaining affidavits from other inmates. 

The Court, in any event, has no power to issue an order against individuals who 

are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 

Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). If 

Plaintiff seeks redress for the conduct of officials at DSH Stockton, he should utilize the 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 52 Filed 02/09/15 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

27

28

4

prison grievance system. If his complaints remain unresolved, he may file a new, 

separate action in federal court. However, he may not use the instant action “as a forum 

to air unrelated grievances concerning his incarceration.” See White v. Johansson, 2014 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176908, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 1, 2014); Cepero v. High Desert State 

Prison, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84603, at *6 (D. Nev. June 18, 2014). 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not established his entitlement to a temporary 

restraining order. Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that 

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 46) be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The 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, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 52 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 4