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)

Download PDF
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?