Sekona v. Baughman et al
Filing
45
ORDER DENYING 35 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/5/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ETUATE SEKONA,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
15
Case No. 16-04287 EJD (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
C. PFEIFFER, Acting Warden,
Respondent.
16
(Docket No. 35)
17
18
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
19
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. The Court issued an
20
order directing Respondent to file an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus
21
should not be issued. (Docket No. 21.) Respondent filed an answer. (See Docket Nos. 25
22
& 26.) Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) requesting more
23
access to the law library and that he not be transferred while his habeas case is pending.
24
(Docket No. 35.) Respondent filed an opposition, (Docket No. 40), and Petitioner filed a
25
reply, (Docket Nos. 43 & 44).
26
27
28
First of all, to the extent that Petitioner’s motion includes allegations against nonparties to this action, i.e., the law librarian and “persons acting in consent or participation
with them,” the motion must be DENIED. Furthermore, Petitioner’s allegations involving
1
conditions of confinement should be brought as a civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
2
§ 1983.
3
The only remaining issue is the appropriateness of a TRO against the Warden, the
4
only party to this action. The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to that required for a
5
preliminary injunction. See Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court,
6
650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J., dissenting). “A preliminary injunction
7
is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant,
8
by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. Brewer, et al., 680 F.3d
9
1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008). In Winter, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s earlier approach that allowed
issuance of a preliminary injunction based on the “possibility” of irreparable injury,
determining that the movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury was likely to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Id. at 21; see also American Trucking Association v. Los Angeles,
559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (Winter standard replaces the previous tests for
preliminary injunctions that had been used in the Ninth Circuit).
19
Petitioner has failed to meet his burden under Winter because he cannot show that
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO. Id. As Respondent points
out, Petitioner was able to file several motions in April 2017, (see Docket Nos. 34, 35, 36,
37), indicating that he has access to the library and the courts. (Docket No. 40 at 3.)
Furthermore in his reply, Petitioner concedes that he has had some time in the law library
“but not enough time.” (Docket No. 44.) He alleges generally that the lack of access to
the library has “cause[d] some damage[] and impairment to [his] case of legal courts.”
(Id.) However, without more specific facts, these allegations are conclusory and fail to
establish a likelihood of irreparable harm such that a TRO is warranted. Accordingly,
28
2
1
Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
2
This order terminates Docket No. 35.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated:
6/5/2017
________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Order Denying TRO
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.16\04287Sekona_deny.tro
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?