Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TONY ROBERTS, an individual, Case No.: 15cv1044-WQH-RBM 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

v. 

J. BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

HA YES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/or 

Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Tony Roberts. (ECF No. 138.) 

I. BACKGROUND 

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Tony Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding prose, initiated 

this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants A. 

Buenrostro, R. Davis, C. Meza, A. Parker, R, Santiago, K. Seibel, and R. Solis for 

violations of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights and his Eighth Amendment right to be free 

from cruel and unusual punishment. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 

On January 9, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds 

that: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust all claims except retaliation against Defendant 

Buenrostro regarding the April 2, 2014 rules violation report; (2) Defendants are entitled 

to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs exhausted retaliation claim; (3) the evidence 

15cvl044-WQH-RBM 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 141 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1 demonstrates that Defendant Buenrostro did not violate Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment 

2 rights; ( 4) no private right of action exists under state law; and ( 5) Defendants are entitled 

3 to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 116.) On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition 

4 to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 119, 120.) 

5 On September 24, 2018, the Court adopted a Report and Recommendation issued by 

6 the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 130) in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment 

7 as to the Eighth Amendment claim, and as to the exhausted retaliation claim from the April 

8 2, 2014 rules violation report. (ECF No. 136.) The Court remanded to the Magistrate 

9 Judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the prison improperly failed to 

10 process Plaintiff's alleged grievances on April 2, 2014; June 23, 2014; and July 8, 2014. 

11 The Court denied summary judgment as to exhaustion, qualified immunity, and state law 

12 grounds, without prejudice and with leave to refile following the evidentiary hearing. 

13 Plaintiff's remaining claims include retaliation for engaging in First Amendment 

14 conduct and causes of action arising under California law. The evidentiary hearing is set 

15 forNovember28,2018. (ECFNo.139.) 

16 On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/or 

17 Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 138.) Plaintiff moves the Court for a temporary 

18 restraining order or preliminary injunction "prohibiting California Department of 

19 Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR Secretary from re-housing Plaintiff Tony Roberts, 

20 at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJDCF), in Sa Diego, California for purposes 

21 of attending trial in the pending litigation." Id. at 3-4. 

22 Plaintiff asserts that "any re-housing of him at RJDCF for any proceeding in this 

23 matter would place him at a serious risk of harm." Id. at 5. Plaintiff provides a declaration 

24 stating that correctional officers, including Defendants Buenrostro and Meza, are arranging 

25 for "members of California's most violent Hispanic prison gang ... to have [Plaintiff] 

26 murdered as revenge for the pending lawsuit." Id. at 9. The declaration states that gang 

27 members "brandish[ed] weapons and threaten[ed]" Plaintiff in February of 2017, after 

28 which Plaintiff "sought a place of safety in the Mental Health Crisis Bed." Id. at 9-10. 

2 

15cvl044-WQH-RBM 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 141 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.<pageID> 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 

Plaintiff asserts that "any re-housing of him at RJDCF for purpose of Mr. Roberts being 

transported back and forth to court for the evidence hearing ... would pose an unreasonable 

risk to his future health and safety." Id. at 5. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b )(1) provides that 

The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral 

notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: 

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a 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; and 

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give 

notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(l). 

In this case, Plaintiff provides a declaration of service by U.S. mail, indicating that 

he served the motion on the opposing parties. Id. at 12. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 

that "immediate and irreparable injury" will result ifthe Court does not issue a temporary 

restraining order "before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

65(b)(l)(A). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 65(b)(l). Reno 

Air Racing Ass 'n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Granny 

Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974)) ("The stringent restrictions 

imposed ... by Rule 65 on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect 

the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before 

reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute."). 

The motion for a temporary restraining order is denied. 

Rule 65(a) provides that "The Court may issue a preliminary injunction only on 

notice to the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(l). Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary 

injunction remains pending. Defendants shall file any opposition to the motion for a 

preliminary injunction on or before October 18, 2018. Plaintiff shall file any reply on or 

before October 25, 2018. The Court will rule thereafter. 

3 

15cvl044-WQH-RBM 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 141 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
1 III. CONCLUSION 

2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF 

3 No. 138) is DENIED. 

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file any opposition to the motion 

5 for a preliminary injunction on or before October 18, 2018. Plaintiff shall file any reply on 

6 or before October 30, 2018. The motion for a preliminary injunction remains pending. 

7 (ECF No. 138). 

8 

9 DATED: 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hon. William Q. Haye 

United States Distric udge 

4 

l 5cvl 044-WQH-RBM 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 141 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4