1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CORREY MITCHELL, Case No. 23-cv-06295-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR 9 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; GRANTING EXTENSION OF 10 RONALD BROOMFIELD, et al., TIME 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 20

12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42

. His allegation that Defendant Elisha Scott and Defendant Ronald Broomfield 14 caused his prison records to add 44 years to his sentence, i.e. from a term of 207 years to life to a 15 term of 251 years to life was found, when liberally construed, to state cognizable claims against 16 them for violating his federal constitutional rights to due process and to be free from cruel and 17 unusual punishment. 18 Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary 19 restraining order directing Defendant Broomfield, whom he alleges is the “Director of the Legal 20 Processing Unit, and his staff” to follow prison procedures and directing Broomfield “to cease the 21 ongoing violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (ECF No. 17 at 4-5.) Plaintiff cites the 22 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) Departmental Operations 23 Manual (“DOM”) Section 71020.7.3. (Id.) The Court ordered Defendants to show cause why the 24 motion should not be granted, which they have done because Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood 25 of success on the merits. 26 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 27 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 1 || Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

(2008). “A preliminary injunction is ‘an 2 || extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear 3 showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. Brewer, et al.,

(9th 4 Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to 5 || that required for a preliminary injunction. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. 6 Court,

, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J., dissenting). 7 Defendants have shown that Defendant Broomfield is not, and never has been, the Director 8 || of the CDCR’s Legal Processing unit or responsible for the calculation of inmates’ sentences. As 9 for Plaintiff's request for Broomfield to stop the constitutional violations by other Defendants, 10 || Defendants have also shown they have not calculated Plaintiff's sentence to be any longer than 11 207 years, and there are no plans to do so absent an order from the state court. Accordingly, 12 || Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood that his claims will succeed on the merits. His motion for a 5 13 preliminary injunction or TRO is DENIED. (ECF No. 17.) 14 Defendants’ motion for an extension of time, to and including August 1, 2024, to respond 3 15 || to Plaintiff's discovery requests is GRANTED. (ECF No. 20.) a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17 || Dated: June 25, 2024 1g / | 19 S LM □□□□ 20 Uite pts D strict Judge 21 foe” 22 23 24 25 26 27 28