(PC) Williams v. Jones

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | Tyson Williams, No. 2:19-cev-01595-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. G. Jones, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Tyson Williams, who is incarcerated, alleges in this action that two officers— | 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 | 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 | his transfer to a different prison, away from Jones and Parham, while this action is pending. See | generally Mot., ECF No. 28. It is also possible to interpret his motion as a more general request | 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 | assault. See id. at 2. The defendants oppose the motion, see generally Opp’n, ECF No. 30, and | the Magistrate Judge recommends denying it, see generally F&Rs, ECF No. 32. Neither | Williams nor the defendants have objected. ] This court has reviewed the record and the findings and recommendations and adopts the | Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny Williams’s motion. Temporary restraining orders | and preliminary injunctions may be issued only to avoid irreparable harm. See Fed. R. Civ. P. | 65(b)(1)(A); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stuhlbarg | Int’l. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Williams did not | show that he is at risk of immediate and irreparable harm. When he requested injunctive relief, | more than two years had passed since the alleged assault, see Compl. § 13, and no evidence | 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 | consistent with the more complete explanation above. The motion for a temporary restraining | order (ECF No. 28) is denied. This matter is referred again to the assigned Magistrate Judge for | 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