Opinion

Singh

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Sep 23, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 36.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1353-JDP (P)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 M. SINGH, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed two motions for appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 26

18 & 29, and another for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, ECF No. 28. I

19 will deny his motions for appointment of counsel and recommend that his motion for preliminary

20 injunctive relief be denied without prejudice.

21 Motions for Appointment of Counsel

22 Plaintiff argues that counsel should be appointed on his behalf because his eyesight has

23 worsened, and he will be temporarily blind for an indeterminate amount of time and unable to

24 effectively litigate. ECF No. 26 at 1-6. The immediate motion was drafted by another inmate,

25 Mark Johnson, on plaintiff’s behalf. Id. at 6. I am not unsympathetic to plaintiff’s plight, but

26 appointment of counsel in pro se civil cases is impossible in all but the rarest of circumstances. I

27 cannot require counsel to represent claimants in civil cases and attempts to find counsel often

28 require pausing a case for months while court staff attempt (often without success) to find

1 amenable counsel. I am disinclined to order commencement of that process here, because

2 plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is

3 denied. If he requires additional time to litigate because of his health issues, he may motion for

4 reasonable extensions.

5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

6 Another inmate, Mark Johnson, has filed a declaration on plaintiff’s behalf that alleges

7 imminent danger from defendant Singh and requests that a temporary restraining order issue,

8 requiring that all defendants stay out of plaintiff’s housing unit. ECF No. 28 at 3. The motion,

9 such as it is, fails because it does not address the Winter factors for the issuance of preliminary

10 injunctive relief. See Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a

11 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

12 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

13 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”). Neither does it, beyond Johnson’s

14 unsupported contentions, offer any substantive evidence that plaintiff is in imminent danger from

15 Singh or any other defendant. And absent convincing evidence, courts should not interfere in

16 prison operations. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 88 (1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d

17 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff may renew this motion with additional evidence and a

18 discussion of the Winter factors.

19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

20 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action; and

21 2. Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel, ECF Nos. 26 &29, are DENIED.

22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and

23 temporary restraining order, ECF No. 28, be DENIED.

24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of

26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed

1 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

2 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

3 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

4 1991).

5

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 23, 2025 Q_————

8 awe D. PE i ERSON

9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.