Wilkins v. Ahern

Filing 312

ORDER DENYING 309 PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 20, 2012.(mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SHERIFF GREG AHERN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
KEENAN WILKINS,

No. C 08-1084 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Docket No. 309)

17
18

On February 22, 2008, plaintiff, a pretrial detainee then incarcerated at the Santa Rita

19

County Jail (“SRCJ”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under

20

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative pleading in the instant action is plaintiff’s Second Amended

21

Complaint (“SAC”), a sixty-page document that the Court previously determined stated

22

cognizable claims for relief, based on events that allegedly occurred between March 2007

23

and December 2008, during which time plaintiff was incarcerated at the SRCJ. By order

24

filed November 30, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff’s request to stay the instant action

25

pending resolution of criminal proceedings brought against him in Alameda County Superior

26

Court.

27
28

Plaintiff has twice requested an order lifting the stay for the purpose of his seeking
injunctive relief from the conditions of confinement at the Glen Dyer Detention Facility

1

(“GDDF”) where he currently is incarcerated. Both requests have been denied on the

2

grounds that: (1) state criminal proceedings remain ongoing, and (2) the claims found

3

cognizable in this action are based on events that allegedly occurred while plaintiff was

4

incarcerated at the SRCJ not GDDF.

5

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining

6

order and preliminary injunction precluding jail officials from locking plaintiff in “multi

7

purpose rooms with no seating.” The application will be denied for two reasons. First, as

8

noted above, plaintiff has twice been denied leave to seek such injunctive relief in light of the

9

current stay. Further, plaintiff has neither complied with the notice requirement for
injunctive relief as required by Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

certified the reasons for his not providing such notice, as required by Rule 65(b) of the

12

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

13
14
15

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED.

16

This order terminates Docket No. 309.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

DATED: July 20, 2012
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2