Becker v. Sherman, et al.
Filing
35
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Pro Se 29 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/10/17. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
JOSEPH BECKER,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN SHERMAN, et al.,
CASE No. 1:16-cv-0828-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(ECF NO. 29)
Defendants.
15
16
17
Plaintiff is a transgender state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel in a
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction
19
of a magistrate judge.
20
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 22, 2017, pro se emergency motion
21
for temporary restraining order to prevent Plaintiff’s impending transfer from the Sierra
22
Conservation Center, where she is presently housed in single-cell status, to the
23
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”), an institution where Plaintiff
24
claims she was assaulted on two separate occasions by her cellmates. Plaintiff filed this
25
motion pro se after her alleged inability to communicate with appointed counsel.
26
27
At the Court’s order, counsel for Plaintiff filed a response to the pro se motion.
(ECF Nos. 33-34.) Based on counsel’s declaration, the undersigned finds that
28
1
1
communications between Plaintiff and her attorney have been consistent and regular. It
2
also does not appear that Plaintiff is currently scheduled to be transferred to CSATF or
3
any other institution. See Adams Decl. ¶ 6.
4
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s June 22, 2017, pro se
motion (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 10, 2017
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?