Rabb v. Figueroa, et al.

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING 47 Findings and Recommendations DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for TRO 44 signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/8/2024. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAMEN D. RABB,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-0843 JLT SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
(Docs. 44, 47)

16
17

Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights in this action

18

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks a temporary restraining order, asserting that he fears

19

for his safety since filing this action, correctional officers beat him, and a transfer to another

20

facility was not permitted despite his eligibility. (Doc. 47.)

21

The magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to demonstrate injunctive relief was

22

appropriate in this action. (Doc. 47 at 3-5.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s motion

23

“addresses conduct that is not a subject of this action, and therefore fails to demonstrate either a

24

likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question on the merits.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate

25

judge observed that though Plaintiff reported “he was previously ‘beaten’ by correctional officers,

26

but he does not provide any specific facts beyond speculation or conjecture that would

27

demonstrate he is in danger of suffering imminent or irreparable harm.” (Id. at 4.) The

28

magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff also failed to show “that the balance of equities tips in
1

1

his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge

2

recommended the Court deny the motion. (Id. at 5.)

3

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff

4

again asserts that he was beating by unidentified officers following the filing of this action, and

5

reiterates his fear that if he leaves his cell, he “would be in immediate danger.” (Id. at 1.)

6

Importantly, however, Plaintiff does not address the findings of the magistrate judge that his

7

assertions are not tethered to the claims raised in his complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff’s generalized

8

fear for his safety is insufficient to support his request for injunctive relief. See, e.g., Goldie's

9

Bookstore v. Superior Court of State of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Speculative

10

injury does not constitute irreparable injury”); see also Bradford v. Jordan, 2018 WL 11328113,

11

at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) (“Moreover, although Plaintiff alleges instances of harm suffered

12

from prison officials, Plaintiff's speculative fear of a conspiracy to murder him by nearly 40

13

individuals does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary

14

injunction”).

15

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

16

Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the

17

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court

18

ORDERS:

19

1.

20
21

The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 8, 2024 (Doc. 47) are
ADOPTED in full.

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 44) is DENIED.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2024

25
26
27
28
2