Valles v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Andrew Valles, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against thirteen defendants, including California and New York agencies and federal and state officers. He then filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order is a short-term court order intended to prevent immediate harm while the court considers further proceedings. Valles argued that his constitutional rights were being violated because he was subject to “sex offender parole conditions,” even though he asserted that his current conviction was exclusively for financial crimes.

The court’s review of the docket indicated that Valles had not served the defendants with the complaint or his emergency motion. The court also noted that Valles’s own filings cited an earlier related proceeding involving his prior convictions. According to the opinion from that proceeding, Valles had pleaded guilty to offenses involving a child and later pleaded guilty to traveling in interstate commerce and knowingly failing to register as required by the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court explained that a request for a temporary restraining order generally requires a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the order, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest. Because the government was a party, the court said the public-interest and equities inquiries merged. The court also emphasized that ex parte relief—relief issued without giving the opposing parties notice and an opportunity to respond—is subject to stringent restrictions.

The court declined to issue the ex parte temporary restraining order. It reasoned that Valles had not shown that such relief was warranted and was not merely seeking to preserve existing conditions until a hearing. Instead, he was asking the court to alter his parole conditions based on his own account, without the defendants’ participation. The court stated that it would not issue relief without notice and an opportunity for the defendants to respond.

The court directed that, if Valles wished to pursue expedited relief, he had to serve the summons, complaint, and motion for preliminary relief and file proof of service by October 20, 2025. The defendants’ opposition papers would be due October 27, 2025, if service and proof were timely filed. The court said it would schedule a hearing if it could not resolve the temporary-restraining-order and preliminary-injunction motion from the written submissions.

Motion for Criminal Investigation

Valles also moved for the court to refer Deputy Attorney General Garrett Gorlitsky, Judge Amber Mettler, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Mortizavi to the United States Department of Justice for criminal investigation and prosecution. The court denied that motion, stating that prosecutorial decisions are the responsibility of the Executive Branch.

Disposition

The court declined to issue the requested ex parte temporary restraining order and set service and response deadlines for any expedited proceedings. It denied Valles’s motion to refer the three defendants for criminal investigation and prosecution. The order did not decide whether Valles’s parole conditions were lawful.