Fletcher v. Lizarraga
Filing
46
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/23/2017 DENYING petitioner's 44 motion to correct the record and petitioner's 45 request for appointment of counsel. IT IS RECOMMENDED petitioner's 45 motion for temporary restraining order be denied. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DRAMAINE FLETCHER,
12
No. 2:14-cv-1409 TLN CKD P
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
J. LIZARRAGA,
15
ORDER AND FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
Respondent.
16
Petitioner has filed a motion to correct the record. (ECF No. 44.) He has also filed a
17
18
motion for temporary restraining order in which he requests that the California Department of
19
Corrections be prevented from transferring him to another prison pending resolution of this
20
matter. (ECF No. 45.) Alternatively, he requests that he be appointed counsel. (Id. at 3.)
21
22
I.
Motion to Correct the Record
In his motion to correct the record, petitioner asserts that the June 30, 2017 findings and
23
recommendations incorrectly state that he was convicted in 2013 when he was in fact convicted in
24
2009. (ECF No. 44.) While the findings and recommendations do refer to petitioner as
25
challenging a 2013 conviction, they also contain a footnote which clarifies that he was originally
26
convicted and sentenced in 2009 and later resentenced as a result of his direct appeal. (ECF No.
27
40 at 1 & fn.1.) The court finds that the record is sufficiently clear and is not in need of
28
correction; the motion will be denied.
1
1
2
II.
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Appointment of Counsel
A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court
3
may impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the
4
movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
5
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The
6
purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a fuller
7
hearing. The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for
8
issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832,
9
839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary
10
11
injunctions is “substantially identical”).
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [(1)] that he is likely to
12
succeed on the merits, [(2)] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
13
preliminary relief, [(3)] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [(4)] that an injunction is
14
in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The
15
Ninth Circuit has held that injunctive relief may issue, even if the moving party cannot show a
16
likelihood of success on the merits, if “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of
17
hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction,
18
so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the
19
injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,
20
1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Under either formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief
21
should be denied if the probability of success on the merits is low. Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of
22
Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips
23
decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is
24
a fair chance of success on the merits.’” (quoting Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670,
25
675 (9th Cir. 1984))).
26
In light of the pending recommendation that the petition be denied (ECF No. 40),
27
petitioner is unable to show a likelihood of success on the merits and the motion for a temporary
28
restraining order should be denied. Similarly, because of the recommendation that the petition be
2
1
denied, the court finds that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel and the
2
alternate request for counsel will be denied. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (authorizing the appointment
3
of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require”).
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1. Petitioner’s motion to correct the record (ECF No. 44) is denied.
6
2. Petitioner’s request for counsel (ECF No. 45) is denied.
7
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining
8
order (ECF No. 45) be denied.
9
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
10
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
11
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
12
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
13
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
14
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
15
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
16
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
Dated: October 23, 2017
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
13:flet1409.hc.pi.f&r
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?