Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02830/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02830-1/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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\McCurdy830misc2 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX MCCURDY, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

GARY SIMPSON, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2830 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER;

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

(Docket nos. 4, 7)

Plaintiff, a civil detainee pursuant to California’s “Sexually Violent Predators

Act,” (“SVPA”) see Cal. Welf & Inst. Code §§ 6600 - 6609.3, filed the instant civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for

Eastern District of California. The instant civil rights action was transferred to this Court

on April 26, 2006. The Court initially denied Plaintiff’s motion for a fee exemption and

required Plaintiff to submit a non-prisoner in forma pauperis application. Plaintiff has

filed a motion for a protective order and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The

Court will DENY plaintiff’s motion for protective order and DENY Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice. 

*Original filed 3/14/07

Case 5:06-cv-02830-JF Document 8 Filed 03/14/07 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

1

 The district court cannot properly balance the hardships without taking into account the

hardship, or lack of hardship, to the non-movants. Armstrong v. Mazurek, 94 F.3d 566, 568 (9th

Cir. 1996).

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\McCurdy830misc2 2

DISCUSSION 

A. Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a qualified protective order to bar the named

Defendants from transporting, housing, supervising or having any personal contact with

Plaintiff while this case is pending before the Court. The Court construes Plaintiff’s

motion as a motion for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 sets forth the procedure for issuance of a

preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Prior to granting a

preliminary injunction, notice to the adverse party is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

65(a)(1). Therefore, a motion for preliminary injunction cannot be decided until the

parties to the action are served. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that requests for injunctive relief may be based upon

either of two sets of criteria. The “traditional” test requires the movants to: (1) establish a

strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the possibility of irreparable injury to

the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a balance of hardships

favoring the movants;1

 and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public interest. 

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200

(9th Cir. 1980). 

The “alternative” test requires that the movants demonstrate either a combination

of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. See

Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 795 (9th Cir. 1990); Alaska v. Native Village of

Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988); American Motorcyclist Ass’n v. Watt, 714

Case 5:06-cv-02830-JF Document 8 Filed 03/14/07 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\McCurdy830misc2 3

F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). These two formulations represent two points on a sliding

scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of

success decreases. Diamontiney, 918 F.2d at 795. At the very least, however, the

moving party must show a fair chance of success on the merits. Armstrong v. Mazurek,

94 F.3d 566, 567 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Court notes that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction

cannot be granted at this stage because the Defendants have not been served and are not

on notice. Furthermore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown sufficient facts

to establish that he actually faces irreparable harm at this time, as he is currently housed

at Coalinga State Hospital. Nor has Plaintiff shown his probable success on the merits. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a qualified protective order (docket no. 4) is DENIED

without prejudice. If Plaintiff’s circumstances change during these proceedings, he may

renew his request with the Court. 

B. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff filed a non-prisoner in forma pauperis application. However, Plaintiff did

not include a copy of his trust account statement. As set forth in the Court’s previous

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for fee exemption, Plaintiff should note that the question

on page four of the application regarding whether he has a bank account should be

completed to indicate any funds he has in any trust account maintained for him at the

institution where he is committed or detained. Plaintiff must inform the Court of any

such account he has at the facility. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s initial motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed in

the Eastern District includes a copy of his Coalinga State Hospital Trust Account

statement and a certificate of funds showing that Plaintiff had an average deposit of 

$108.25 and an average balance of $49.69 in the preceding six months. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 7) is DENIED without

prejudice. Plaintiff shall submit a copy of his trust account statement within thirty days

Case 5:06-cv-02830-JF Document 8 Filed 03/14/07 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\McCurdy830misc2 4

of the date this order is filed and the Court will reconsider Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. The Court will review Plaintiff’s complaint in a separate written order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/14/04 JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02830-JF Document 8 Filed 03/14/07 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\McCurdy830misc2 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Rex McCurdy

CO-00035-6 RHU 4

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210 

Case 5:06-cv-02830-JF Document 8 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 5