Robertson v. Doe
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-02523
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Robertson v. Kaiser-Nevel, Judge Freeman denied Robertson’s request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
Reginal Robertson’s request for emergency court-ordered recognition of “court-certified pro-per” status and related assistance was denied; the order did not resolve his underlying civil-rights claims against the jail staff defendants.
What happened
In Robertson v. J. Kaiser-Nevel, Reginal Robertson, a pretrial detainee proceeding without a lawyer, sued Santa Rita County Jail staff under a civil-rights law. He asked the court to require defendants to recognize him as “court-certified pro-per” and provide related materials, rights, privileges, and assistance.
The court denied the request. It said defendants had not been served, Robertson had not shown that he notified them, and he had not established the required factors for emergency relief. The court also found no connection between the requested “pro-per” status and the claims in his complaint, which concerned his confinement in a visiting booth and related deprivations.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order was denied as without merit and terminated the docket entry for that motion. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Robertson v. Doe · No. 5:20-cv-02523
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 4, 2021
Background
Reginal Robertson, identified as a pretrial detainee, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Santa Rita County Jail, where the opinion states he was housed. He was proceeding without a lawyer. The operative complaint alleged that he was unlawfully confined in a visiting booth for several hours, causing various deprivations.
Robertson later moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He asked the court to compel the defendants to acknowledge his status as a “court-certified pro-per” and provide him with “all materials, rights, privileges, and assistance afforded to inmates with said designation.”
Court’s analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. A preliminary injunction generally requires notice to the opposing parties before it can be decided. A temporary restraining order may be issued without notice only when specific facts show that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can respond, along with a written certification concerning notice.
The court stated that defendants had not been served and that Robertson had not indicated he otherwise notified them of the claims. It therefore concluded that he had not satisfied the notice requirement for a preliminary injunction. The court also found that he had established none of the factors required for preliminary relief: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.
The court further explained that an injunction must relate to claims pleaded in the complaint. It found no connection between Robertson’s request for “pro-per” status and the complaint’s allegations about confinement in a visiting booth and related deprivations.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Robertson’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order “as without merit.” The order terminated Docket No. 22. The opinion does not state that the underlying civil-rights action was dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.