Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cranford v. Badagon

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 12, 2014

ARCHIE CRANFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELA BADAGON, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc. 48) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Archie Cranford, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2011. On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendants Balcagon, Perryman and Harder[1] from coming within 50, 000 feet of him and mandating that Plaintiff remain in his current housing location. (ECF No. 48.) Defendants filed an opposition on April 30, 2014. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff replied on May 9, 2014. (ECF No. 65.)

The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), and "[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). "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." Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

In this case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, a balance of equities in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Plaintiff has filed motions in numerous other cases seeking a similar restraining order against the defendants in those cases. See, e.g., Cranford v. Perryman, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00763-BAM, ECF No. 21; Cranford v. Crawford, Case No. 1:14-cv-00055-MJS, ECF No. 13; Cranford v. Wyatt, Case No. 1:14-cv-00136-DLB, ECF No. 8; Cranford v. Ceballos, 1:14-cv-00210-BAM, ECF No. 7; Cranford v. Palos, 1:14-cv-00242-SKO, ECF No. 8.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, filed on March 17, 2014, be DENIED. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65; Local Rule 231; Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst , 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.