Adom v. CDCR

Background

Bilal Adom, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights case against CDCR and other defendants. He moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction concerning accommodations for incontinence. The opinion states that the motion did not address the merits of the claims in his complaint.

Emergency-relief standards

The court explained that a preliminary injunction generally requires notice to the opposing party. It also requires the plaintiff to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that an injunction serves the public interest.

A temporary restraining order may be issued without notice only if specific facts show that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can respond, and the applicant's attorney certifies the efforts made to provide notice and why notice should not be required.

Court’s analysis and rulings

The court found that Adom had not served the motion on the defendants, provided them notice, or certified his efforts to provide notice and the reasons notice should not be required. The court also found that Adom had not shown a likelihood of success. It stated that the claims raised in the motion had not been exhausted through the available administrative process, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that Adom could not bring those claims in federal court until he completed that process. The court further found that the alleged harm was neither serious nor irreparable.

The court therefore denied Adom’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It granted the defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion. The defendants’ motion was due June 30, 2023; Adom’s opposition was due July 28, 2023; and the defendants’ reply was due August 11, 2023. The court also granted Adom’s motion for permission to make corrections to his complaint.