(PC) Sekona v. Lizarraga et al, No. 2:2017cv00346 - Document 51 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/8/2019 RECOMMENDING 41 and 42 Motions for Temporary Restraining Order be denied without prejudice. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Sekona v. Lizarraga et al Doc. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ETUATE SEKONA, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-0346-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOE A. LIZARRAGA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed two motions seeking a temporary restraining order, along with 19 supporting declarations and exhibits. ECF Nos. 41 & 42. For the reasons stated below, the 20 motions must be denied. 21 Plaintiff filed his motions for the purpose of securing single cell housing. ECF No. 41 at 22 2. He states that on November 17, 2018, at Kern Valley State Prison, his cellmate assaulted him 23 – punching and kicking him until he was unconscious. Id. at 6, 11. Plaintiff states there was 24 “blood in [his] brain” and he spent two days in the hospital. Id. Plaintiff was given a new 25 cellmate upon his return from the hospital. Id. Plaintiff now seeks an order directing that he be 26 provided a single cell because he still feels unsafe, even with this new cellmate, with whom he 27 has previously shared a cell. Id. at 13. Additionally, plaintiff says that his current cellmate plays 28 his television loudly all day and night, has a pet mouse that runs around the cell, and makes 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 “wine” in the cell. Id. Allegedly, the cellmate has threatened to hurt or kill plaintiff if plaintiff 2 complains. Id. Plaintiff has complained, however. When they previously shared a cell, plaintiff 3 reported his misconduct and got a new cellmate. Id. at 7-8, 13-14. 4 A temporary restraining order may be issued upon a showing of “specific facts . . . that 5 immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse 6 party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); Haw. County Green Party v. 7 Clinton, 980 F. Supp. 1160, 1164 (D. Haw. 1997)(“The standards for granting a 8 temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are identical.”); cf. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales 9 Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (observing that an analysis of 10 a preliminary injunction is “substantially identical” to an analysis of a temporary restraining 11 order). The purpose of the order is to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm 12 “just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. 13 Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). An order requiring that plaintiff be single 14 celled would change rather than preserve the status quo. Moreover, plaintiff no longer shares a 15 cell with the inmate who assaulted him and he has previously reported the misconduct of his 16 current cellmate, without incident. Because plaintiff has not alleged “specific facts” showing that 17 he is threatened with immediate and irreparable injury, his motions for a temporary restraining 18 order must be denied. 19 More fundamentally, plaintiff’s requested relief appears to have no nexus to the claims 20 being litigated in this action. Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction absent a showing 21 “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 22 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 23 is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 24 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). This action proceeds on claims that 25 arose at Mule Creek State Prison. ECF Nos. 18 & 21. Plaintiff’s motions concern conduct that 26 occurred at Kern Valley State Prison, and thus, fail to demonstrate either a likelihood of success 27 on the merits or a serious question on the merits. Generally, such allegations must be pursued 28 through the prison administrative process and then litigated in a separate action. See McKinney v. 2 1 Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) and Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 2 1002, 1004-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (together holding that claims must be exhausted prior to the filing 3 of the original or supplemental complaint); Jones v. Felker, No. CIV S-08-0096 KJM EFB P, 4 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13730, at *11-15, 2011 WL 533755 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011). 5 6 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 41 & 42) be denied without prejudice. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 12 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 13 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: February 8, 2019. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
