Wilson v. Allison
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04838
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wilson v. Allison, Judge Corley denied Wilson’s second temporary restraining-order motion and his request for more time.
Peter Wilson was denied emergency relief preventing a move to a double cell and was denied an extension of time; the named prison officials were not subject to the requested temporary restraining order.
What happened
Peter Wilson, a California prisoner representing himself, sued Kathleen Allison and other prison officials under a federal civil-rights law. He asked the court to stop officials from moving him from a single cell to a double cell and from transferring him to another prison. After the court denied his first request, Wilson filed a second request focused on the single-cell issue.
The court said Wilson had to show that he was likely to win his claim, likely to suffer serious harm without an order, that the balance of harms favored him, and that an order would serve the public interest. Wilson argued that a medical condition required a single cell, but the medical record he cited showed only that he requested a single cell, not that his doctor recommended one for medical reasons. The court also said his other arguments had already been considered and rejected.
Judge Corley denied Wilson’s second request for a temporary restraining order. The judge also denied his request for more time because Wilson did not identify the deadline he wanted extended and the court had imposed no deadlines. The court separately corrected a date in its earlier order from November 8, 2021, to November 8, 2018.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Allison · No. 3:22-cv-04838
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 27, 2022
Background
Peter Wilson, a California prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer against Kathleen Allison, Trent Allen, Lomeli, and Pizano. Along with his complaint, Wilson requested a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to prevent immediate harm. He sought to stop the defendants from moving him from a single cell to a double cell and from transferring him to another prison.
The court denied Wilson’s first request and ordered that the defendants be served. Wilson appealed that decision, but the United States Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Wilson then filed a second request for a temporary restraining order, again seeking to prevent his move from a single cell to a double cell. He also filed a motion asking for an extension of time.
Temporary restraining order
A person seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without preliminary relief, that the balance of equities favors the requested order, and that the order would serve the public interest. The person seeking the order bears the burden of proving these requirements. When the person has not shown a likelihood of success, the court need not decide whether irreparable harm is likely.
Wilson argued that his urological condition created a medical need for a single cell. In addressing the first request, the court had noted that Wilson told Allen that his condition required a single cell, while Allen responded that Wilson’s doctor had not made a medical recommendation for one. In the second request, Wilson asserted that Dr. Chungafung had recommended a single cell on January 21, 2021. The court reviewed the cited medical record and found that it showed only that Wilson requested a single cell and a neurology referral. It did not show that Dr. Chungafung recommended a single cell for medical reasons.
The court therefore found that Wilson had not shown a likelihood of success on a claim that moving him from a single cell would violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against constitutionally serious medical harm. The court also stated that Wilson’s remaining arguments had been considered and rejected in connection with his first request.
Rulings
The court denied Wilson’s second motion for a temporary restraining order. It also denied Wilson’s motion for an extension of time because he did not identify the deadline he wanted to extend, and the court had imposed no deadlines.
The court additionally corrected a date in its earlier order. The date listed as November 8, 2021, on page 2, line 12, was changed to November 8, 2018.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.