(PC) Williams v. Jones ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Tyson Williams, No. 2:19-cev-01595-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. G. Jones, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Tyson Williams, who is incarcerated, alleges in this action that two officers— 18 | Jones and Parham—assaulted him for no reason during a classification hearing in January 2019. 19 | See Compl. at 2-3, ECF No. 1. Williams is representing himself, so this action was referred to 20 | the assigned Magistrate Judge for all pretrial purposes under this District’s Local Rules. 21 Last June, Williams moved for a temporary restraining order and an injunction ordering 22 | his transfer to a different prison, away from Jones and Parham, while this action is pending. See 23 | generally Mot., ECF No. 28. It is also possible to interpret his motion as a more general request 24 | for any form of protective, injunctive relief. See id. at 1 (requesting an “Order of Protection”). 25 | He stated under penalty of perjury that he was “in fear of his life” after the allegedly unprovoked 26 | assault. See id. at 2. The defendants oppose the motion, see generally Opp’n, ECF No. 30, and 27 | the Magistrate Judge recommends denying it, see generally F&Rs, ECF No. 32. Neither 28 | Williams nor the defendants have objected. ] This court has reviewed the record and the findings and recommendations and adopts the 2 | Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny Williams’s motion. Temporary restraining orders 3 | and preliminary injunctions may be issued only to avoid irreparable harm. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 | 65(b)(1)(A); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stuhlbarg 5 | Int’l. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Williams did not 6 | show that he is at risk of immediate and irreparable harm. When he requested injunctive relief, 7 | more than two years had passed since the alleged assault, see Compl. § 13, and no evidence 8 | shows Jones and Parham have threatened or harmed him again. 9 The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 32) are adopted in part, to the extent 10 | consistent with the more complete explanation above. The motion for a temporary restraining 11 | order (ECF No. 28) is denied. This matter is referred again to the assigned Magistrate Judge for 12 | all further pretrial proceedings. 13 This order resolves ECF Nos. 28 and 32. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: February 18, 2022. 16 ee 7 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45