Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00080/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00080-14/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

EARNEST S. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEXTON, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 1:18-cv-0080 KJM DB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges use of the Guard One Security Check 

system at California State Prison-Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”) deprived him of sleep in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 

order. (ECF No. 60.) For the reasons set forth below, this court will recommend plaintiff’s 

motion be denied. 

BACKGROUND

This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed February 22, 2019. 

Plaintiff alleges defendants are responsible for the implementation and use of the Guard One 

Security Check system in the security housing unit at CSP-Corcoran. That system requires 

officers to touch a metal pipe to a metal box affixed to each cell door in plaintiff’s housing unit.

////

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 61 Filed 08/11/20 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

Plaintiff alleges this occurs every half hour, all day, every day. As a result of the noise from the 

metal-on-metal contact, plaintiff claims he has suffered and continues to suffer sleep deprivation.

On June 14, 2019, defendants moved to stay these proceedings pending the resolution of 

an appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit from an order issued in Rico v. Ducart, 2:17-cv-1402 

KJM DB P. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff Rico raises similar concerns about the use of the Guard One 

Security Check system. Defendants in that case filed an appeal of the court’s denial of qualified 

immunity to some defendants. On September 11, 2019, the previously-assigned magistrate judge 

recommended defendants’ motion to stay be granted. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff filed objections to 

that recommendation. (ECF No. 53.) 

In November 2019, plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction preventing or modifying the 

use of Guard One at CSP-Corcoran. (ECF No. 57.) In December, this court recommended 

plaintiff’s motion be denied. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff filed objections to that recommendation. 

(ECF No. 59.) 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff seeks an order preventing a psychiatric technician, C. Flores, from coming within 

fifty feet of him. Plaintiff contends he filed a prison grievance complaining that C. Flores is 

violating the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) by refusing to announce her presence when 

she conducts security checks in plaintiff’s housing unit. In retaliation for the grievance, C. Flores 

has threatened plaintiff and is conducting security checks much more loudly than necessary by 

“bamming” the Guard One metal pipe against plaintiff’s cell door. That noise is causing plaintiff 

migraine headaches and distress. 

I. Legal Standards

A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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 Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief 

hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean 

Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 61 Filed 08/11/20 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

Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff 

demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the 

public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits 

of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for 

the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the 

“serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable 

after Winter).

The principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to 

render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this required showing is 

that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the 

claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial. Preliminary injunctive relief is 

not appropriate until the court finds that the plaintiff’s complaint presents cognizable claims. See

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court

may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 

jurisdiction over the claims . . . .”).

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 

injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the 

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that 

harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Further, an injunction against individuals not parties to an action 

is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 

(1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . . . resulting from litigation in 

which he is not designated as a party . . . .”).

II. Analysis

In the present case, plaintiff is seeking a temporary restraining order against a person who 

is not a party to this case based on allegations of a constitutional claim that he has not raised 

herein. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to issue the injunction plaintiff seeks. 

////

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 61 Filed 08/11/20 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

Plaintiff appears to recognize that he must exhaust his grievances and, if they are 

unsuccessful, file a new action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the alleged retaliation by C. 

Flores. That is the appropriate course. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary 

restraining order (ECF No. 60) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 11, 2020

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/harr0080.tro fr(2)

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 61 Filed 08/11/20 Page 4 of 4