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)

Download PDF
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?