Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06650/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06650-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE GODOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND GERRY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT; DENYING REUQEST 

FOR INJUNCTION AND TRO

Re: Dkt. No. 17

On November 1, 2018, Plaintiff, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaining of events that took place at the Correctional Training Facility, the California Institute 

for Men, and Mule Creek State Prison—all places where Plaintiff was previously incarcerated. 

Dkt. No. 1. On January 29, 2019, the Court reviewed the complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

amend, noting various deficiencies such as the joinder of unrelated claims, Plaintiff’s failure to 

state his allegations clearly, and improper joinder of multiple plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 9. Pursuant to 

Plaintiff’s request, the Court has twice extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended 

complaint. Dkt. Nos. 12, 16. The current deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint is

May 29, 2019. Dkt. No. 16. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a 90-day extension of time to file 

his amended complaint, and his request for an injunction or temporary restraining order 

transferring him to a prison facility with a functional law library and closer to his family and 

friends. Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiff alleges that he has been unable to prepare his amended complaint 

because he has been given very limited access to the law library and, when allowed to access the 

law library, he has had limited access to the Lexis-Nexis computer terminals. He further alleges 

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 18 Filed 05/28/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

that he has been threatened with physical violence by one of the inmate clerks assigned to the law 

library and therefore is no longer comfortable using the law library. See id.

The Court will grant Plaintiff a final extension of time to file his amended complaint. 

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint by August 23, 2019. No further extensions of time 

will be granted. The Court notes that many of the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint do not 

require legal research to rectify. For example, complying with the requirements set forth in Rule 

20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require Plaintiff to conduct legal research. 

Compliance with Rule 20 requires Plaintiff to chose which related claims he would like to pursue 

in this action, and to list only those claims in the amended complaint. 

Plaintiff’s request for an injunction or temporary restraining order transferring him to a 

prison facility with a functional law library and closer to his family and friends is DENIED for the 

following reasons. 

First, 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). Here, 

the complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend and no parties have yet been served. A 

TRO may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney 

only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint 

that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the 

adverse party or the party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney 

certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons 

supporting the claim that notice should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Plaintiff has 

failed to satisfy either of these requirements.

Second, a preliminary injunction is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as 

that to be finally granted. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 

631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, it is not yet certain what relief this action seeks because there is no 

operative complaint. 

Accordingly, the request for injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order is DENIED. 

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 18 Filed 05/28/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

This order terminates Dkt. No. 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/28/2019

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 18 Filed 05/28/19 Page 3 of 3