Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1116/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 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P 

ORDER 

On November 14, 2019, Christopher Lipsey (Lipsey) filed a motion to intervene in 

this action to seek relief from alleged sleep deprivation he claims is caused by the use of Guard 

One welfare checks in administrative segregation units (ASUs) and security housing units (SHUs) 

in prison institutions in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). On 

February 14, 2020, Lipsey filed a motion for temporary restraining order seeking specific relief 

from operation of Guard One in the SHU at California State Prison-Corcoran (CSP-Corcoran). 

See ECF No. 6462-2 at 25. On February 26, 2020, the court heard argument on both motions. At 

hearing the court signaled Lipsey’s motion to intervene would be granted; the motion was granted 

in a written order filed February 27, 2020. February 27, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6487. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7095 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 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 

2 

The motion for temporary restraining order has been fully briefed, and the parties 

have engaged in informal settlement discussions with the court’s Special Master. On November 

5, 2020, Lipsey filed an amended complaint in intervention. ECF No. 6941. According to the 

allegations of the amended complaint, Lipsey is now housed in the Kern Valley ASU and 

continues to suffer harm from sleep deprivation caused by Guard One checks. He seeks 

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing defendants from subjecting him to the 

noise caused by the Guard One checks as described in the allegations of the amended complaint. 

ECF No. 6941 at 6. 

“The underlying purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo and prevent 

irreparable harm before a preliminary injunction hearing is held.” Hawai’i v. Trump, 

241 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (D. Hawai’i 2017) (citing Granny Goose Foods v. Brotherhood of 

Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) 

and Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2006)). Here, more 

than six months have passed since Lipsey’s motion was fully briefed, the parties have engaged in 

discovery, and Lipsey has transferred to a different prison and filed an amended complaint. The 

underlying purpose of temporary injunctive relief is not served by ruling on the motion filed by 

Lipsey more than a year ago, which he has not sought to supplement or update. Instead, the 

parties will be directed to meet and confer and propose a schedule for adjudication of Lipsey’s 

claim on the merits, either by motion for summary judgment or evidentiary hearing. Lipsey’s 

motion for temporary restraining order will be denied without prejudice. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff/Intervenor Christopher Lipsey’s motion for temporary restraining 

order, ECF No. 6462, is denied without prejudice; and 

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer 

and file a joint statement proposing a schedule for adjudication of Lipsey’s 

claim on the merits. 

DATED: March 19, 2021. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7095 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 2