Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DAVID RADEMAKER, No. 2:26-cv-0234 WBS CSK P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER AND

14 SIRCOYA WILLIAMS, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action brought under

18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction is before the Court. As

19 discussed below, it is recommended that plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief be denied

20 without prejudice.

21 I. PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

22 Plaintiff, who identifies as transgender, alleges that since she was transferred to California

23 Medical Facility (“CMF”) on June 23, 2023, she has been refused single cell status, despite

24 having been single celled for 25 years in state and county custody due to her mental health issues

25 and gender status.1 (ECF No. 15 at 15.) Around January 25, 2024, plaintiff stopped receiving

26 1 Plaintiff receives mental health care at the enhanced outpatient (“EOP”) level. “CDCR’s

Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide provides four levels of mental health

27 care services: Correctional Clinical Case Management System (CCCMS); Enhanced Outpatient

(EOP); Mental Health Crisis Bed (MHCB) and inpatient hospital care . . . .” Coleman v. Brown,

28 No. CIV. S-90-520 LKK, 2013 WL 6491529, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013).

1 ducats for EOP groups and to see her case manager for mental health treatment. (Id. at 6.)

2 Plaintiff sets forth multiple allegations against 11 named defendants at California Medical

3 Facility who allegedly denied plaintiff mental health care for her serious mental health care needs

4 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id., passim.) Plaintiff also names defendants John and

5 Jane Does 1-5. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and money damages. (Id. at 35.)

6 II. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

7 A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

8 Plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendants to immediately provide plaintiff with full law

9 library access when it is open and priority legal user (“PLU”) status, so plaintiff can proceed with

10 this case. (ECF No. 18 at 4.) In her motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiff alleges the

11 following. She is unable to litigate this action because she has been denied access to the CMF

12 law library, despite court deadlines in this case. (Id. at 2.) At least three library staff have left

13 and there is no librarian remaining at CMF. (Id.) Plaintiff acknowledges she has been on time

14 with court deadlines, but cannot send her application to proceed in forma pauperis due to lack of

15 library staff, and claims she has been trying multiple times since February 6, and requested

16 extensions of time. (Id. at 3.) She argues it would not be a burden to the state because plaintiff

17 has PLU status already and inmate staff and officers are already assigned to the law library. (Id.)

18 Plaintiff’s motion is supported by two exhibits, copies of grievances plaintiff submitted

19 concerning her inability to attend the law library. (Id. at 5-10.)

20 B. Legal Standards

21 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter

22 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To qualify for injunctive relief, plaintiff

23 must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that plaintiff will

24 suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and

25 (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20. A deficiency in any element precludes relief.

26 Id. at 23.

27 As to the second Winter element, an injunction “is unavailable absent a showing of

28 irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or

1 immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again -- a likelihood of substantial and

2 immediate irreparable injury.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) (internal

3 quotation marks and citation omitted). Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm.

4 See Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). A presently

5 existing actual threat must be shown, although the injury need not be certain to occur. Zenith

6 Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130-31 (1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d

7 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998).

8 Finally, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on

9 prisoner litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases,

10 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to

11 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means

12 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Villery v. California Dep’t of Corr.,

13 2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit observed, the PLRA places

14 significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, and

15 “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the

16 bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that

17 binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of

18 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

19 C. Discussion

20 Plaintiff fails to demonstrate she will be irreparably harmed unless the Court grants her

21 preliminary relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Indeed, plaintiff’s reliance on her alleged

22 inability to timely file an application to proceed in forma pauperis is belied by the court record.

23 In January 2026, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis along with her original

24 complaint, and the motion was granted on February 3, 2026. (ECF No. 8.) On March 13, 2026,

25 plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was unnecessary because

26 plaintiff was already granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 16.) Then, on March

27 20, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file another application to proceed in

28 forma pauperis. (ECF No. 17.) Because she is already proceeding in forma pauperis, the motion

1 for extension of time is denied as unnecessary. As a pro se litigant, plaintiff is responsible for

2 keeping track of her cases, and should refrain from filing duplicative requests.

3 The court record also does not show that plaintiff has had to seek multiple extensions of

4 time for other court deadlines. On February 18, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion for an additional 21

5 days to file her amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Such motion did not rely on a complete

6 denial of law library access at CMF. Rather, plaintiff claimed the extension was needed because

7 of a required medical procedure and a prison lockdown which would close the prison law library

8 for two days. (Id. at 2.)

9 What the court record does show is that plaintiff is able to file motions, and on March 11,

10 2026, plaintiff was able to timely file her 36 page first amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) The

11 Court has not yet screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Thus, plaintiff is not under a

12 present obligation to submit documents within a time certain and therefore has not demonstrated

13 that her right of access to the courts is being impaired. The Court will not set a deadline merely

14 for the purpose of insuring the plaintiff additional library time.

15 Therefore, the Court recommends that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No.

16 18) be denied without prejudice.

17 III. CONCLUSION

18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to

19 file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 17) is unnecessary and is denied.

20 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No.

21 18) be denied without prejudice.

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

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

24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

25 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

27 ///

28 ///

1 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

2 | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

4 Dated: April 8, 2026 >

Cha Spo

5 CHI SOO KIM

6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7 || MAade0234.pi2

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28