Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01951/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01951-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
L. Lara
Defendant
J. Loveall
Defendant
J. Neibert
Defendant
J. Westphal
Defendant
Joshua A. Willard
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Joshua A. Willard is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I.

INTRODUCTION

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 3.) 

In the Court’s screening order, issued simultaneously herewith, the Court has found that 

Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendants J. Neibert, L. Lara, J. 

Loveall, and J. Westphal. 

In his present motion, Plaintiff seeks to restrain Defendant Lara, Loveall, and Westphal from 

working in his housing unit. Plaintiff contends that on November 25, 2014, he went to “C” medical 

for dental treatment and all three Defendants approached him and called him a “snitch” and “bitch” for 

reporting the misuse of force that took place on May 2, 2014. Defendant Westphal said “we are going 

JOSHUA A. WILLARD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. NEIBERT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01951-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

[ECF No. 3]

Case 1:14-cv-01951-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 3
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

to beat you again, the only reason why we are not doing it at this time is because there is to many 

people around.” (ECF No. 3, Mot. at 2.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

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 

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). 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 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). 

The determination of whether Defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff is a disputed 

issue of fact that is the pivotal point of Plaintiff’s claims. “In deciding a motion for a preliminary 

injunction, the district court is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed 

questions of fact.” Int’l Molder & Allied Workers Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547, 551 

(9th Cir. 1986). Certainly at this point in the action based on the limited record, the Court cannot 

resolve the factual dispute, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

Beyond merely stating that Plaintiff will suffer “present as well as future irreparable harm,” 

Plaintiff has not shown the likelihood of irreparable injury. Plaintiff’s allegations in the present 

motion are based on a single incident which took place in November 2014, and there is no indication 

that Plaintiff has continuous and regular contact with these Defendants. See City of Los Angeles v. 

Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury, and 

Case 1:14-cv-01951-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 3
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

“[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding 

injunctive relief .... If unaccompanied by any continuing, present, adverse effects.”). Plaintiff has not 

alleged an immediate threatened injury. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football 

League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Even if Plaintiff could show that the balance of hardship tips in his favor, this factor alone, 

absent a showing of likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, is insufficient to 

warrant imposition of a temporary restraining order. 

Although it is in the public interest to ensure an inmate’s safety while housed in a state facility, 

in this instance, the record presently does not support the finding that a temporary restraining order is 

justified to ensure such public interest. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 

order should be denied.

III.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” 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, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01951-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 3