Archie Cranford v. Ceballos

Filing 8

ORDER Denying 7 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/12/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

11

Plaintiff,

12

Case No. 1:14-cv-00210-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
(Doc. 7)

13

VANESSA CEBALLOS,

14

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Archie Cranford, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 18, 2014. On March 17, 2014,
18 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendant Ceballos from
19 coming within 50,000 feet of him and mandating that Plaintiff remain in his current housing
20 location.
21

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

22 preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d
23 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), and “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
24 awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129
25 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
26 establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
27 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is
28

1 in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a
2 clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
3

In this case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood

4 of irreparable harm, a balance of equities in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.
5 Rather, Plaintiff’s motion appears to be duplicative of motions he has filed in numerous other
6 cases seeking a similar restraining order against the defendants in those cases. See, e.g., Cranford
7 v. Badagon, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM, ECF No. 48; Cranford v. Perryman, et al.,
8 Case No. 1:13-cv-00763-BAM, ECF No. 21; Cranford v. Crawford, Case No. 1:14-cv-000559 MJS, ECF No. 13; Cranford v. Wyatt, Case No. 1:14-cv-00136-DLB, ECF No. 8; Cranford v.
10 Palos, 1:14-cv-00242-SKO, ECF No. 8.
11

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, filed on March 17, 2014,

12 is HEREBY DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Local Rule 231; Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 12, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2