Doe 1 v. Hall ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DOE #1, an individual; No. 1:20-cv-00600-NONE-JDP JOHN DOE #2, an individual; 12 JOHN DOE #3, an individual; and JOHN DOE #4, an individual, 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 14 v. (Doc. No. 8) 15 ANDREW HALL, in his official capacity 16 as Chief of the Fresno Police Department; and MARGARET MIMS, in her official 17 capacity as Fresno County Sheriff, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Before the Court is a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) brought by 21 plaintiffs, John Does 1 and 4, who are sex offenders registered with the state under California’s 22 Sex Offender Registration Act. (Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiffs seek an order prohibiting defendant 23 Margaret Mims, Fresno County Sheriff, in her official capacity, from requiring in-person 24 registration updates during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic until plaintiffs’ request for preliminary 25 injunction can be heard. (Id. at 1–2.) Periodic registration updates are required under California 26 Penal Code § 290.012; however, plaintiffs contend that certain health conditions and age render 27 them particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2, meaning it is 28 unsafe for them to present themselves to update their registrations. (Id. at 1-3.) 1 Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO is informed by their understanding of personal presentment 2 for registration as it occurred in previous years and months, prior to the COVID-19 outbreak and 3 before implementation of social distancing and other public health measures. (Doc. Nos. 8 at 4; 4 8-1 at 10, 11, 29.) For example, regarding the registration updating process, plaintiffs state: “… 5 Registrants are forced by Defendant to occupy crowded conditions in Sheriff’s stations where the 6 recommended social distancing and sanitation measures cannot be observed,” (Doc. No. 8 at 4); 7 “[d]uring past registration appointments with the [Fresno County Sheriff’s Office], Plaintiff John 8 Doe #4 has been required to stay in confined spaces for up to an hour with several other 9 Registrants” and “forced to touch many potentially contaminated surface and objects …,” (Doc. 10 No. 8-1 at 10); and “[d]uring the registration process, Registrants are exposed to premises that 11 are unsanitary, crowded, and do not allow for ‘social distancing’ or other preventive measures 12 …,” (Doc. No. 8-1 at 11). An affidavit from John Doe #4 details his experience registering in 13 2019 but contains no information about more recent or current conditions. (Doc. No. 8-1 at 29.) 14 In response, defendant has outlined the changes made to the personal presentment process, 15 which currently is “no contact,” socially-distanced, and takes place outdoors. (Doc. Nos. 10 at 8– 16 9; 10-1.) Specifically, a detective responsible for registration on behalf of defendant has stated as 17 follows in his affidavit: 18 We started [on March 18] by using tables outside, allowing ‘social 19 distancing,’ while still having registrants sign in, provide thumbprint and signature on the forms, and we still collected forms 20 while wearing gloves and masks. 21 … 22 On 4/7/2020 – to the present, due to the extension of the ‘Shelter in 23 Place’ order, FCSO started ‘no contact’ registrations. The building remains closed to registrants, we removed the tables, taped off both 24 entrances to the raised porch along the front of the building. We accept no paperwork, Driver’s licenses, I.D.’s, etc. from registrants 25 and observe at least 6 feet of social distance. We have painted ‘X’s’ on the ground to indicate the proper positioning. We sign-in 26 registrants and document any necessary changes. Upon 27 completing the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) 8102 forms, in the comments section, we type or hand-write ‘Covid-19 – No 28 signature/fingerprints. Verbal confirmation of information/ wOAOe UV IN IN VR MVM tt PC ee TOY VI 1 requirements.’ We sign & date the forms and provide the registrant the opportunity to accept a copy. We take a photo of the 2 registrant from distance of at least 6 feet. All this is conducted 3 while wearing gloves and some wearing masks. We also maintain accessible hand-sanitizers. 4 5 | (Doc. No. 10-1 at 44 3, 5.) 6 A plaintiff must establish each of the following to secure an injunction: “that he is likely 7 || to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 8 || relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 9 || Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 24 (2008) (“A preliminary 10 || injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a right.”). The plaintiff bears the burden 11 | to “make a showing on all four prongs.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 12 | (9th Cir. 2011). 13 The facts presented by plaintiffs in support of their request for a TRO are stale. Plaintiffs 14 | are silent regarding the significant changes that have been made to the personal presentment 15 || process for updating sex offender registrations. Plaintiffs have not disputed the description of the 16 || new process or contested the sufficiency or efficacy of the mitigation measures defendant has 17 | enacted. Plaintiffs’ request instead hinges on a prior process, which is no longer in place. The 18 | harm contemplated by plaintiffs relates to the old process, not the new, as demonstrated by 19 | plaintiffs’ own words outlined above. Because there is no dispute of fact that a new process of 20 | “no contact,” socially-distanced, outdoor registration updating exists, the Court finds plaintiffs 21 | have not met their burden in demonstrating they are likely to suffer an irreparable harm unless 22 | relief is granted. 23 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, (Doc. No. 24 | 8), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. J “a | Dated: _May 27, 2020 LL 1 Yrod 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28