# Opinion > District Court, E.D. California · April 8, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379972 ## Case - **Full name:** David Rademaker v. Sircoya Williams, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** April 8, 2026 - **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/11379972 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379972. Public record. Not legal advice.