McCullom v. Unknown
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-03798
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In McCullom v. Unknown, Judge Freeman denied without prejudice requests for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
The ruling affected Kevin L. McCullom’s request for emergency relief against the state officials and Santa Rita Jail public agency identified in his motion; it did not decide the merits of his proposed civil-rights claims.
What happened
In In re Kevin L. McCullom, a state prisoner sought emergency court orders against state officials and the Santa Rita Jail public agency after beginning a civil-rights action with a letter instead of a proper complaint.
The court said the proper defendants had not been identified or served, so the notice requirement for a preliminary injunction had not been met. It also found that McCullom had not shown the required likelihood of success or irreparable harm because he had not filed a viable complaint.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order without prejudice as premature, and terminated the motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- McCullom v. Unknown · No. 5:21-cv-03798
- Beth Freeman
- June 22, 2021
Background
McCullom, identified as a state prisoner, filed a letter that the court treated as an attempt to bring a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Santa Rita County Jail officials. The court had given him time to file a proper complaint on the court’s form. Before doing so, he filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order against “the state officials and Alameda County Sheriff’s Dept. Santa Rita Jail’s Public Agency” to stop various alleged illegal activities.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 generally requires notice to the opposing party before a preliminary injunction is issued. A temporary restraining order may be issued without notice only when specific facts show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard, along with the required written certification concerning notice. The court also stated that a person seeking preliminary relief must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favors an injunction, and that an injunction serves the public interest.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that McCullom had not yet filed a proper complaint, and the proper defendants had not been identified or served. Accordingly, he had not shown that the notice requirement for a preliminary injunction was satisfied. The court further found that he had established none of the required factors for preliminary relief, including likely success on the merits or irreparable harm, because he had not filed a viable complaint.
Disposition
The court denied McCullom’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order without prejudice as premature. The order also terminated Docket No. 5.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.