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