Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00828/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00828-1/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

JOSEPH BECKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:16-cv-0828-MJS (PC)

ORDER

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME;

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION;

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER;

(4) DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFIED 

TRUST STATEMENT; AND

(5) GRANTING MOTION FOR WAIVER 

OF THE ELECTRONIC FILING 

REQUIREMENT

(ECF NOS. 3, 4, 5, 12, and 16.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

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

in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the 

jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 9.)

Case 1:16-cv-00828-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 5
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

On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and found to state an 

Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Lt. Maximo Lunes. Plaintiff 

accuses the Defendant of acting with deliberate indifference when he ordered Plaintiff to 

be double-celled with a second inmate after Plaintiff’s then-current cell-mate attempted 

to rape her. In the Screening Order, Plaintiff was directed to either file a first amended 

complaint within thirty days or notify the Court of her willingness to proceed only on the 

claim found to be cognizable. (ECF No. 14.)

In a later-filed document, Plaintiff alleged that the second inmate with whom she 

was ordered to double-cell raped her shortly after Plaintiff’s placement in the cell.1This 

rape occurred even after Plaintiff’s attorney contacted Lt. Lunes to inform him of the 

danger to Plaintiff’s safety caused by double-celling. Pl.’s Decl. ¶¶ 7-10 (ECF No. 11.) 

In light of the seriousness of the allegations and the serious potential for future 

harm, the undersigned determined that Plaintiff would benefit from the assistance of 

counsel. Accordingly, on September 27, 2016, all dates were vacated and the ADR and 

Pro Bono Coordinator was directed to seek out pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 15.) Despite 

a months-long search, however, efforts to locate counsel have been unsuccessful. The 

Court must therefore re-direct Plaintiff to proceed with the filing of an amended pleading

at this time. 

The Court will now also address a number of motions filed by Plaintiff, including a 

motion for injunctive relief and a related motion to expedite ruling on this motion (ECF 

Nos. 3, 12), a motion directing institutional staff to furnish a certified trust statement (ECF 

No. 4), and a motion to waive the e-mail filing of a pleading (ECF No. 5). 

I. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

When Plaintiff initiated this action on June 15, 2016, she also filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order seeking to prevent Plaintiff’s future victimization by directing 

institutional staff members to place her on single-cell status. At the time, Plaintiff was 

 

1

Plaintiff has since been transferred to another institution where she remains in general population. (ECF 

No. 11.)

Case 1:16-cv-00828-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 5
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

housed at California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. 

Plaintiff has since been transferred to the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, 

California. (ECF No. 10.)

The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to 

preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that 

justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action 

are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). 

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or temporary restraining order] 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 favor, 

and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” 

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) 

(emphasis in original). A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary 

injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported by evidence.

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 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 

U.S. 95 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 

and 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.”

Case 1:16-cv-00828-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 5
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

Here, although the Court found a cognizable claim in the Complaint against Lt. 

Lunes, Plaintiff has not given notice of willingness to proceed on the Complaint as 

screened. To the contrary, her recent motion for extension of time to file an amended 

complaint indicates that she does not wish to proceed on the claim already found to be 

cognizable. As such, there is not yet an actual case or controversy before the Court. 

Moreover, now that Plaintiff has been transferred to another institution, her motion 

seeks an order directed towards non-parties. “A federal court may issue an injunction if it 

has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it 

may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. 

United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief must be denied.

II. Motion for Certified Trust Statement

Plaintiff’s motion for an order for a certified trust statement will be denied as moot 

because Plaintiff has already provided this statement to the Court. (ECF No. 2.) 

Additionally, Plaintiff has already been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 

No. 7.)

III. Motion for Court to Waive Email Filing Requirement

Finally, Plaintiff moves the Court for a waiver of the requirement that her

complaint be filed electronically. Good cause appearing, this request will be granted.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 

16) is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint within thirty days from the date of 

this Order; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for expedited consideration (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3) is DENIED;

5. Plaintiff’s motion for a certified trust statement (ECF No. 4) is DENIED; and

Case 1:16-cv-00828-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 01/27/17 Page 4 of 5
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

6. Plaintiff’s motion for a waiver of the electronic filing requirement (ECF No. 5) is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00828-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 01/27/17 Page 5 of 5