Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01259-0/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

WILLIAM LYLE NIBLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, Secretary of 

Corrections; T. Dorsey, Parole Agent; 

and DOES 1–100,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff William Lyle Nible brings this pro se Complaint alleging violations of his 

federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Jeffrey Macomber, the 

Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), 

Tommee Dorsey, a Parole Agent with CDCR, and 100 Doe Defendants (together, 

“Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks an emergency preliminary injunction against 

Defendants, which was filed with Plaintiff’s Complaint, asking that the Court enjoin 

Defendants from enforcing several allegedly unconstitutional conditions of parole. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency 

Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff may re-file the Motion and request a 

hearing following notice to Defendants and briefing on the issue by both sides. 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 6 Filed 05/13/24 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

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff “was or is confined (actual custody) or on parole (constructive custody) 

by” CDCR. (Pl.’s Civil Compl. in Accord with Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 2) ¶ 4 

(“Complaint” or “Compl.”).) Plaintiff was found suitable for release on parole on 

February 15, 2023, and he was subsequently released on June 27, 2023. (See id.

¶ 22.) During this four-month period, Plaintiff initiated several meetings and 

discussions with his CDCR officers to prepare for his release, including requesting an 

“Interstate Compact Transfer” under the “Interstate Compact for Adult Offender 

Supervision” or “ICAOS” from supervision in California to supervision in Missouri, with 

no success. (See id. ¶¶ 23, 26–27.) Plaintiff eventually filed an administrative

grievance regarding the transfer request that led to the paperwork being signed and 

initiated. (See id. ¶ 30.) However, Defendant Dorsey refused to file the request until 

December 27, 2023. (See id. ¶ 31.) Defendant Dorsey also failed to respond to 

Plaintiff’s request for a travel pass for Christmas to see his family. (See id. ¶¶ 34–35.) 

Plaintiff tells a similar story with respect to his interactions with other agents 

while on parole, as Plaintiff had several assigned agents. (See Compl. ¶ 40.) For 

instance, during parole, Plaintiff tried moving to Pasadena, California after his parole 

was reassigned from Sacramento to Los Angeles 16 hours before his release. (See id

¶¶ 25, 43.) However, his then-assigned agent said that Plaintiff could not move into 

the residence without the location first being inspected. (See id. ¶ 44.) The officer 

allegedly never inspected the Pasadena residence. (See id. ¶ 45.) 

Finally, Plaintiff complains about having to complete sex offender treatment 

with an entity called “New Beginnings,” which began on February 23, 2024. (See

Compl. ¶ 51.) Plaintiff complains that he was compelled to sign documents waiving 

his Constitutional rights and to attend classes that caused Plaintiff to seek medical 

treatment for high blood pressure. (See id. ¶¶ 51–52.) Additionally, Plaintiff 

apparently had difficulties at the Department of Motor Vehicles “that resulted in delay 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 6 Filed 05/13/24 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

of obtaining a driver license, seek[ing] employment, and [participating in] socially 

acceptable functions required of productive citizenry . . . .” (Id. ¶ 53.) 

Plaintiff alleges various violations of his constitutional rights as a result of the 

parole conditions Defendants imposed, including “rights guaranteed through the 

Fourteenth Amendment, to Due Process, Equal Protection, and Double Jeopardy[.]” 

(Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff seeks damages of $10,000,000 per Defendant and injunctive 

relief, including the instant request for preliminary injunctive relief. (See id. ¶ 82.) 

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 1, 2024. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed 

the instant Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief. (See Pl.’s Mem. in 

Supp. of a Mot. for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 

2-1) (“Motion” or “Mot.”).) According to Plaintiff, he provided “actual notice, or a 

sufficient showing of efforts to provide notice to the affected part[ies.]” (ECF No. 2-4 

at 1.) However, Plaintiff failed to attach any affidavits or declarations regarding the 

notice or his efforts to effect notice, as required under the documents to be filed and 

served on affected parties and counsel. (See id. at 2.) 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff failed to comply with the Local Rules, which is sufficient reason to deny 

the Motion. See, e.g., Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 

(9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules 

is well within a district court’s discretion.”). Except in the most extraordinary of 

circumstances, no temporary restraining order shall be granted in the absence of 

actual notice to the affected party and/or counsel, by telephone or other means, or a 

sufficient showing of efforts made to provide notice. E.D. Cal. R. 231(a) (Mar. 1, 2022) 

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)). Appropriate notice would inform the affected party 

and/or counsel of the intention to seek a temporary restraining order, the date and 

time for hearing to be requested of the Court, and the nature of the relief to be 

requested. Id. Absent actual and appropriate notice, the movant seeking a TRO must 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 6 Filed 05/13/24 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

state “in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be 

required[ ]” under the Federal Rules, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B), and “detail[ ] the notice 

or efforts to effect notice to the affected parties or counsel or show[ ] good cause why 

notice should not be given,” E.D. Cal. R. 231(c)(6) (citing E.D. Cal. R. 142 on affidavits). 

Plaintiff has not provided any details regarding whether he has provided actual notice, 

whether he tried to use reasonable efforts, or whether he should not be required to 

provide notice. Moreover, it does not appear to the Court that the Plaintiff has 

established immediate and irreparable injury that will result before the Defendants 

can be heard in opposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary 

Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings. See E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DJC3 – Nible.24cv1259.Emergency.TRO

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 6 Filed 05/13/24 Page 4 of 4