Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01005/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01005-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK CONRAD FAUROT II, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT )

EXECUTIVE OFFICER RODD H. )

 BARTON, ET AL., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-1005 AWI SMS

ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF

CANNOT APPEAL PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) AND

REFERRING ACTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

(Document #12)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, has filed

this action against Clerks at the Kings County Superior Court. In both the original complaint

and amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Kings County Superior Court Clerks have

improperly returned his state habeas corpus petition without filing it. 

Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and

order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. Plaintiff sought an

order from this court requiring the Kings County Superior Court Clerks to immediately file his

state habeas corpus petition. On August 30, 2006, the court denied the motion for a temporary

restraining order. On September 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. On

September 18, 2006, the court denied the motion for reconsideration.

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 18 Filed 07/26/07 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

On October 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis during his

interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). On October 12, 2006, the court granted the

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

DISCUSSION

A review of the docket reveals that Plaintiff has never filed a notice of appeal in this

court. The court’s records also reveal that Plaintiff has never filed an appeal with the Ninth

Circuit of the court’s orders regarding the temporary restraining order. As such, the court will

proceed on this action.

Plaintiff is further advised that it does not appear an interlocutory appeal is available to

Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 provides in relevant

part: 

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of

appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:

(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, the

United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District

Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or of the

judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving

injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a

direct review may be had in the Supreme Court;

28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a)(1). The Ninth Circuit may hear appeals from interlocutory orders of this

court which grant, continue, modify, refuse or dissolve injunctions. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). 

“Ordinarily, an appeal does not lie from the denial of an application for a temporary restraining

order; such appeals are considered premature and are disallowed ‘[i]n the interests of avoiding

uneconomical piecemeal appellate review.’” Religious Technology Center, Church of

Scientology Intern., Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9 Cir. 1989) (quoting Kimball v. th

Commandant Twelfth Naval District, 423 F.2d 88, 89 (9 Cir. 1970)). However, there is an th

exception to this rule. A temporary restraining order may be appealed if the circumstances

render the denial tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction. Church of Scientology

Intern., Inc., 869 F.2d at 1308; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Andrus, 625 F.2d 861, 862

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 18 Filed 07/26/07 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

(9 Cir.1980). The Ninth Circuit has found that the denial of a temporary restraining order is

th

tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction if: (1) The denial of the temporary

restraining order followed a full adversary hearing; and (2) In the absence of review, the

appellants would be effectively foreclosed from pursuing further interlocutory relief.” Andrus,

625 F.2d at 862. 

Here, the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order did not follow a

full adversary hearing. In fact, Defendants have not yet been served in this action. The court’s

order denying the temporary restraining order did not foreclose Plaintiff from obtaining further

relief. Finally, the court's denial of the temporary restraining order did not effectively decide

the merits of Plaintiff’s action. This court is not foreclosed from ordering Defendants to accept

Plaintiff’s state habeas petition in the future. This case remains pending. Plaintiff has filed an

amended complaint. This action will be referred to the Magistrate Judge to screen the amended

complaint. If appropriate, the Magistrate Judge will issue a scheduling order and service order. 

 Accordingly, because the denial of Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order was not

tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff cannot automatically appeal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a)(1).

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. To the extent a motion for interlocutory appeal is pending before the court,

such motion is DENIED;

2. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge to screen the amended

complaint and issue any other appropriate orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01005-AWI -SMS Document 18 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3