Turner v. Smith et al
Filing
69
ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 65 Motion for TRO; denying 65 Motion for Order to Show Cause. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
No. C 11-05176 CRB
STEPHEN B. TURNER,
ORDER DENYING INJUNCTION
Plaintiff,
v.
MELODY SMITH, ET AL.,
15
Defendants.
/
16
17
Plaintiff Stephen B. Turner filed an amended complaint along with a (fourth) request
18
for pretrial injunctive relief. Dkt. 64, 65; see also dkt. 18, 31, 38. Though the filing was
19
styled as an “Ex Parte” application for a temporary restraining order, the papers themselves
20
indicate that Turner mailed a copy of the papers to defense counsel, dkt. 65 (“TRO App.”) at
21
1, and Defendants responded following this Court’s order setting a response deadline.
22
Turner’s 159-page complaint includes dozens of causes of action, which are referred
23
to generally in the TRO application,1 but the legal argument in support of the latest request
24
for injunctive relief invokes only one theory. Turner argues that a change in California law
25
permitted prisoners released after October 1, 2011, to apply for early parole discharge, but
26
that he is not eligible to apply for such a discharge because he was released before the new
27
28
1
The Court already denied a TRO premised on Turner’s initial complaint, which largely mirrored
the amended complaint except Turner has added claims stemming from events postdating the filing of
the lawsuit. To the extent this TRO application rehashes those arguments, it is denied for the same
reasons set out in the Court’s previous order. See dkt. 7.
1
law, which applies only prospectively, went into effect. TRO App. at 3; see also People v.
2
Lynch, --- Cal. Rptr. 3d ---, No. C068476, 2012 WL 4017993, at *1 & n.2 (Ct. App. 2012)
3
(describing the change in law).
4
Turner says that failing to apply the new law to him retroactively was a violation of
5
the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and California constitutions. California’s
6
intermediate appellate court, citing federal law, has already rejected a similar challenge to
7
this very law, Lynch, 2012 WL 4017993, at *1, *5; cf. Foster v. Wash. State Bd. of Prison
8
Terms & Parole, 878 F.2d 1233, 1235 (9th Cir. 1989); Doe v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,
9
490 F.3d 491, 504-05 (6th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases regarding prospective application of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
lowered punishments).
11
Legislation must take effect on some specific date, and “the Fourteenth Amendment
12
does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning and thus to discriminate
13
between the rights of an earlier and later time.” Sperry & Hutchinson Co v. Rhodes, 220
14
U.S. 502, 505 (1911). Accordingly, Turner has not demonstrated a clear likelihood of
15
success on the merits sufficient to support the extraordinary remedy of a temporary
16
restraining order at this time. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
17
(2008).
18
In addition, Turner’s unexplained failure to seek relief since the law was passed on
19
April 4, 2011 (and became effective on October 1, 2011), see Lynch, 2012 WL 4017993, at
20
*3, precludes him from making the necessary showing of urgency and irreparable harm.
21
Miller ex rel. NLRB v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 991 F.2d 536, 544 (9th Cir. 1993); Lydo Enters.
22
v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir. 1984).
23
24
25
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without oral argument, and DENIES Turner’s motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 9, 2012
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?