Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Travon Lewis Stokes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in the Eastern District of California against a Chief Medical Officer and others connected to Kern Valley State Prison. The complaint had not yet been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A when this order issued. As the court described it, the complaint alleges lower extremity muscle wasting, circulatory problems, and neurological dizziness over more than two years.
On October 8, 2026, Stokes moved (ECF No. 18) for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It would require the Warden and Chief Medical Officer to send him immediately to an outside hospital emergency room for vascular imaging and to issue a permanent wheelchair chrono. He also asked for appointed pro bono counsel, and for a protective order and subpoena directing the Warden to preserve surveillance and body-worn camera footage of a September 27, 2026 examination by a prison physician. Stokes alleges that the examination was inadequate, that staff returned him to his cell without scanning or a transport wheelchair, and that waiting for a scheduled October 14, 2026 ultrasound risks tissue death or a fatal pulmonary embolism. These are his allegations, and the court made no findings on them.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge entered a combined order. By order, the court directed the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge and denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice. By findings and recommendations, the court recommended that the assigned district judge deny the TRO motion. The recommendation is not itself a ruling on the TRO and is not immediately appealable. Objections of up to fifteen pages are due within fourteen days, and failure to object may waive appellate rights.
On the injunction, the court recited the Winter standard, the case-or-controversy requirement, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that prospective relief be narrowly drawn, but its reasoning turned on jurisdiction. Because the complaint was unscreened, the action did not yet proceed on any cognizable claim, no defendant had been ordered served, and none had appeared. The court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over the officials who would determine whether Stokes faces a medical emergency and what care is warranted. The court said the seriousness of the allegations cannot overcome that bar. It did not decide whether Stokes is likely to succeed or faces irreparable harm. It noted that he may have other avenues, such as a state habeas corpus petition. It did not separately analyze the evidence-preservation and subpoena request.
On counsel, the court applied the exceptional circumstances test under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which weighs likelihood of success and the plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims. It found no exceptional circumstances. Even serious allegations are common in prisoner cases, likelihood of success cannot be assessed before screening, and nothing in the record showed that Stokes cannot articulate his claims. Because the denial is without prejudice, he may renew the request later.
Key Takeaways
- A recommendation to deny a TRO is not a final ruling, and the assigned district judge must still decide the motion after any objections.
- The court tied its recommendation to the lack of personal jurisdiction over unserved defendants in an unscreened case, not to a finding that the medical allegations lack merit.
- The court did not decide likelihood of success or irreparable harm, so the underlying Eighth Amendment allegations remain untested.
- Appointment of counsel requires exceptional circumstances, and the court cannot assess likelihood of success before screening.
- The counsel denial is without prejudice, and the court pointed to state habeas corpus as another route for a prisoner who fears imminent harm.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order and a magistrate judge's recommendation, so it has no precedential weight. It shows how federal courts in the Eastern District of California handle emergency injunction requests filed early in prisoner section 1983 cases, before screening and before any defendant has been served.
For prisoners and counsel, the practical point is that the gap before screening and service can be a barrier even to urgent medical requests in federal court. What remains open is the district judge's decision on the recommendation, screening of the complaint, and any later renewed request for counsel or injunctive relief once defendants are before the court.