Reed-Milton v. California Department of Rehabilitation
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:26-cv-00065
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Alecia Reed-Milton v. California Department of Rehabilitation: Judge Corley denied emergency relief, granted sealing, and dismissed the extension request as moot.
Alecia Reed-Milton’s requests for emergency relief, additional time, and sealing were affected; the California Department of Rehabilitation and the four named employees were not subject to a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
In Alecia Reed-Milton v. California Department of Rehabilitation, the court considered Reed-Milton’s renewed request for emergency relief, request for more time to respond to a dismissal motion, and request to seal materials.
The court denied the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because Reed-Milton had not shown that her amended complaint plausibly stated viable claims or that she was likely to succeed. It dismissed the request for more time as moot because she had already filed her response, and it granted sealing for materials concerning her medical records.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the September 10, 2026 order. The order resolved the listed motions but did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Reed-Milton v. California Department of Rehabilitation · No. 3:26-cv-00065
- Kandis Westmore
- Sept. 10, 2026
Background
Alecia Reed-Milton, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued the California Department of Rehabilitation and four employees over alleged federal and state civil-rights and statutory violations. The court had previously screened and dismissed her original complaint. Reed-Milton then filed an amended complaint naming only the Department, Gregory Hoffman, Carmen Ramirez-Franco, Deyanire Villachica, and Mark Gould.
The order addressed her renewed motion for a temporary restraining order, her request for a preliminary injunction, her motion for more time to file an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and her motion to seal Exhibit A.
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
The court applied the standard requiring a party seeking emergency injunctive relief to show four things: a likelihood of success on the claims, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.
The court focused on the first requirement. It concluded that problems with the amended complaint meant Reed-Milton had not shown that she was likely to succeed because the complaint did not currently plausibly state viable claims. The court therefore denied both her motion for a temporary restraining order and her motion for a preliminary injunction.
Request for More Time
Reed-Milton sought more time to submit her opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. She filed that opposition the day after requesting the extension and before the court ruled on the request. The parties agreed that the extension issue was moot. The analysis states that the court denied the extension motion as moot, while the order’s opening and conclusion state that the motion was dismissed as moot.
Motion to Seal
The court held that the materials attached to the request for more time were connected only indirectly to the case’s merits and therefore were subject to the lower “good cause” standard for sealing. The court found good cause to seal materials concerning Reed-Milton’s medical records and granted the motion to seal.
Disposition
The conclusion denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, grants the motion to seal, and dismisses as moot the motion to extend time. The order disposes of Docket Nos. 29, 30, 45, and 46. It does not resolve the underlying civil-rights or statutory claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.