(PC)Martin v. Pogue ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00560-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. (Doc. No. 13) 14 TYSON J. POGUE, ET. AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for order to return property filed on 18 September 9, 2022. (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiff states Madera County Jail officials violated his 19 Fourth Amendment rights when they took away his “legal materials” and “legal property” upon 20 his arrival at the county jail. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff states the property was removed even though jail 21 officials knew it was evidence related to his “criminal and civil cases.” (Id.). Plaintiff seeks an 22 order from court to direct unidentified county jail officials to return the legal documents that he 23 states contain “exculpatory evidence.” (Id. at 1-2). 24 The courts liberally construe pro se pleadings. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 25 (9th Cir. 2012). Liberally construing the motion, Plaintiff seeks either mandamus or injunctive 26 relief. Notably, to the extent Plaintiff alleges a Fourth Amendment violation, the Supreme Court 27 has found that prisoners do not have a subjective expectation of privacy in their prison cell so 28 the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the 1 confines of the prison cell. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984). 2 To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, 3 known as the All Writs Act, this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to state 4 officials. Demos v. United State Dist. Court of E. Dist. Of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 5 1991). The Court only has “jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an 6 officer or employee of the United States or an agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the 7 plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 8 Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the motion is deficient and denied 9 without prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and restraining orders. 10 A preliminary injunctive requires “notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). A 11 temporary restraining order may be issued “without notice” only if “specific facts in an affidavit 12 or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate, and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will 13 result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as well as written 14 certification from the movant’s attorney stating, “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons 15 why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 16 Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are governed by the same 17 standard, with the exception that preliminary injunctions require notice to the adverse party. See 18 Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. 19 Ca. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Eastern District of California Local Rule 231, however, 20 requires notice for temporary restraining orders as well, “[e]xcept in the most extraordinary of 21 circumstances,” and the court considers whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion 22 for preliminary injunction at an earlier date. Local Rule 231(a)-(b) (E.D. Cal. 2019). A 23 temporary restraining order “should be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving 24 the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and 25 no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 26 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Both preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders require 27 briefs on the relevant issues, affidavits, and proposed order for a bond. L.R. 230. Because the 28 motion does not comply with any of these requirements, the motion is deficient. To the extent 1 | Plaintiff believes he can correct these deficiencies, he may refile a new motion. 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 3 Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. 4 > | Dated: _ December 12. 2022 Mile. Th fareh Hack 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28