(PC) Coleman v. Newsom ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On November 14, 2019, Christopher Lipsey (Lipsey) filed a motion to intervene in 19 this action to seek relief from alleged sleep deprivation he claims is caused by the use of Guard 20 One welfare checks in administrative segregation units (ASUs) and security housing units (SHUs) 21 in prison institutions in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). On 22 February 14, 2020, Lipsey filed a motion for temporary restraining order seeking specific relief 23 from operation of Guard One in the SHU at California State Prison-Corcoran (CSP-Corcoran). 24 See ECF No. 6462-2 at 25. On February 26, 2020, the court heard argument on both motions. At 25 hearing the court signaled Lipsey’s motion to intervene would be granted; the motion was granted 26 in a written order filed February 27, 2020. February 27, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6487. 27 ///// 28 ///// ] The motion for temporary restraining order has been fully briefed, and the parties 2 || have engaged in informal settlement discussions with the court’s Special Master. On November 3 || 5, 2020, Lipsey filed an amended complaint in intervention. ECF No. 6941. According to the 4 || allegations of the amended complaint, Lipsey is now housed in the Kern Valley ASU and 5 || continues to suffer harm from sleep deprivation caused by Guard One checks. He seeks 6 || preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing defendants from subjecting him to the 7 || noise caused by the Guard One checks as described in the allegations of the amended complaint. 8 | ECF No. 6941 at 6. 9 “The underlying purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo and prevent 10 || irreparable harm before a preliminary injunction hearing is held.” Hawai’i v. Trump, 11 | 241 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (D. Hawai’i 2017) (citing Granny Goose Foods v. Brotherhood of 12 || Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) 13 || and Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2006)). Here, more 14 | than six months have passed since Lipsey’s motion was fully briefed, the parties have engaged in 15 || discovery, and Lipsey has transferred to a different prison and filed an amended complaint. The 16 || underlying purpose of temporary injunctive relief is not served by ruling on the motion filed by 17 || Lipsey more than a year ago, which he has not sought to supplement or update. Instead, the 18 || parties will be directed to meet and confer and propose a schedule for adjudication of Lipsey’s 19 | claim on the merits, either by motion for summary judgment or evidentiary hearing. Lipsey’s 20 || motion for temporary restraining order will be denied without prejudice. 21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff/Intervenor Christopher Lipsey’s motion for temporary restraining 23 order, ECF No. 6462, is denied without prejudice; and 24 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer 25 and file a joint statement proposing a schedule for adjudication of Lipsey’s 26 claim on the merits. 27 | DATED: March 19, 2021. 28 Cee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE