Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813-15/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT KEITH ERNST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID FRANCES RAMOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0813 DAD AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for an extension of time to 

respond to discovery requests and another motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary 

injunction. ECF Nos. 82, 83. 

 Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to defendant Miraflor’s requests for 

discovery. ECF No. 82. In the motion, plaintiff states that on November 22, 2024, he received a 

letter from Kathryne Baldwin, defendant Miraflor’s attorney, asking about discovery requests she 

sent on September 23, 2024. Id. at 1. However, plaintiff never received the requests, and the 

letter from Baldwin was processed as regular mail instead of legal mail and did not have 

plaintiff’s correct address. Id. He asserts that the mailroom is continuing to harass him by 

denying and delaying his mail and requests ninety days to “address this mailroom situation.” Id. 

at 2-3. The motion for an extension of time asks the court to reconsider his request for a 

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and is accompanied by another motion for 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 88 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 3
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 

a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction which seeks to enjoin mailroom staff from 

interfering with plaintiff’s mail. ECF No. 82 at 3; ECF No. 83. Plaintiff’s motion for an 

extension of time will be granted to the extent he will be given additional time to submit 

responses to defendant Miraflor’s discovery requests if he has not done so already.1 The motion 

will otherwise be denied, and for the reasons set forth below, it will be recommended that the 

motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be denied. 

“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. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations 

omitted). The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for 

issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 

839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary 

injunctions is “substantially identical”). 

Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time and for a temporary restraining order or 

preliminary injunction largely repeat the allegations of his prior motion for a temporary 

restraining order or preliminary injunction and his objections to the recommendation that that 

motion be denied. Compare ECF Nos. 67, 75 with ECF Nos. 82, 83. The only new allegation is 

plaintiff’s assertion that he has experienced irreparable damage because the fact that he did not 

receive the discovery requests Baldwin sent means that they must have been delivered to some 

other inmate, putting his life in danger. ECF No. 82 at 4; ECF No. 83 at 2, 9-10. However, 

plaintiff’s claim of irreparable damage is based solely on speculation, and he provides no 

evidence to show his mail was given to another inmate. As the undersigned found in 

recommending denial of plaintiff’s previous motion, the mailroom at the prison has confirmed 

that going forward, plaintiff will not be required to exchange indigent envelopes in order to mail 

documents to the non-Attorney General’s Office counsel in this case as long as he complies with 

1

 Defendant Miraflor filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 80), which she has since withdrawn 

(ECF No. 85), indicating that plaintiff may have already served his responses. 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 88 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 3
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 

the other requirements for submitting confidential mail. ECF No. 74 at 2 (citing ECF No. 70 at 

4). Plaintiff has provided no evidence that he has complied with the requirement that he

specifically identify the counsel that any additional envelopes are being requested for when he 

puts in his requests. For these reasons, and those set forth in the September 18, 2024 findings in 

recommendations, which are adopted herein by reference, it will be recommended that the motion

for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 

(ECF No. 82) is GRANTED in part. The motion is granted to the extent plaintiff shall have thirty

days from the service of this order to respond to defendant Miraflor’s discovery requests, if he has 

not done so already. The motion is otherwise DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 

order or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 83) 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)(l). Within twenty-one 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 response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 13, 2025 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 88 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 3