Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01697/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01697-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMNOTHY KING, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-MJS

(PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER

(ECF No. 11)

FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 9, 2015. (ECF No. 

1.) He brings his suit against Defendants Timothy King, C. Chapa, C. Bernard, O. 

Fuentos, and Gauze, all agents of the Kern County Sherriff’s Office, for claims arising

while he was in the custody of the Kern County Sherriff’s Office. 

Plaintiff has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this case. (ECF No. 6.) No 

other parties have appeared in the action.

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first civil rights complaint on March 31, 2016 for 

failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 22 Filed 07/22/16 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

(ECF No. 14.) On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) 

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint on May 6, 2016 for failure to state 

a claim and granted Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff’s

second amended complaint is awaiting screening by the Court. (ECF No. 20.) Before the 

Court is Plaintiff’s February 22, 2016 motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 

11.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before 

a preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed 

merely to prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. 

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 65, a temporary restraining order may be granted only if “specific facts in an 

affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a 

preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 

240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), and “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary 

remedy never awarded as of right,” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 

555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right,” 

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation 

omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). Alternatively, a preliminary injunction 

may issue where the plaintiff demonstrates the existence of serious questions going to 

the merits and the hardship balance tips sharply toward the plaintiff, assuming the other 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 22 Filed 07/22/16 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

two elements of the Winter test are also met. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 

632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). Under either formulation of the principles, 

preliminary injunctive relief should be denied if the probability of success on the merits is 

low. See Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be 

shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits).

An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In addition, 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 the 

harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Finally, a Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary 

injunctive relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Plaintiff “must show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete 

and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or 

hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it 

must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

II. DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff requests this Court issue an order directing officers of the Kern 

County Sheriff’s Office to stay away from Plaintiff. As Plaintiff was transferred to Wasco 

State Prison as of June 10, 2016 (ECF No. 21) and has made no showing that he is likely 

to be transferred back to the custody of the Kern County Sherriff’s Office, Plaintiff’s 

request is now moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995) (An inmate's 

release from prison while his claims are pending generally will moot any claims for 

injunctive relief relating to the prison’s policies.”); see also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 

395, 402–03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1991); Darring v. 

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 22 Filed 07/22/16 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

Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1986).

The Court will therefore recommend Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 

order be denied.

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request 

for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 11) be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, 

Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-HBK Document 22 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 4