# Singh

> District Court, E.D. California · September 23, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11196095

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** September 23, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11196095

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11196095. Public record. Not legal advice.