Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Domenic Betts, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, is suing A. Gonzales and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. On September 30, 2026, he moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 20). Because that filing was unsigned, the court on October 2, 2026 gave him thirty days to refile it with his signature. He did so on October 15, 2026 (ECF No. 24).
The signed motion asks the court to bar defendants from assaulting, maliciously prosecuting, threatening, intimidating and mistreating him and from deleting evidence. It also asks the court to order retention of audio-visual surveillance and body camera footage from an alleged August 18, 2026 beating and other misconduct, and to enjoin defendants Hord, Correctional Officer Gonzales and Regalo from cuffing, escorting, searching, intimidating or harming him. An unsigned affidavit attached to the motion alleges that those officers assaulted him and destroyed his property that day in retaliation for a grievance. These are plaintiff's allegations, not findings. In a separate screening order, the court found that claim nine of the second amended complaint raised a potentially colorable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Hord, Gonzales, Regalo and Doe No. 1 and ordered service. That complaint did not include a retaliation claim.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge applied the familiar Winter standard. A movant must show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and that an injunction serves the public interest. The standard for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical, and the movant bears the burden. The court read the motion as resting on the August 18 beating and as seeking to prevent future harm by the named officers. When immediate injunctive relief is sought based on past violations, the court explained, the plaintiff must show that the threat of future injury is real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical, citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons.
Betts did not claim that defendants had threatened or harmed him since August 18, 2026, and he pleaded no facts from which a real and immediate threat could be inferred. On that ground alone the court recommended denial. The findings do not analyze the other Winter factors. The court also declined to address the request to retain surveillance and body camera footage, stating that the request is not properly raised in a motion for injunctive relief.
The order did two things. It vacated the September 30 motion as superseded by the signed refiled motion, and that vacatur is not a merits ruling. It also recommended, but did not decide, that the October 15 motion be denied. The recommendation goes to Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley, and Betts has fourteen days after service to file objections. Failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner who seeks an injunction based on a past assault must show that a threat of future injury is real and immediate, and the earlier incident alone does not do that.
- Here the plaintiff did not allege any threat or harm after August 18, 2026, and the magistrate judge treated that gap as enough to recommend denial.
- A request to order retention of video and body camera footage was not addressed because it is not properly raised in a motion for injunctive relief, so the preservation question remains open.
- The vacatur of the unsigned September 30 motion followed from the signed refiled motion and was not a decision on the merits.
- Nothing is final yet because the denial is only a recommendation subject to objections, and the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim continues past screening.
Why It Matters
The order shows how courts apply Lyons to incarcerated plaintiffs who ask for prospective protection after an alleged assault. A plausible claim for past excessive force does not by itself justify an injunction against the same officers. The plaintiff must connect the past event to ongoing or imminent risk with specific facts, such as new threats or further incidents.
The decision is a magistrate judge's recommendation, not a district judge's ruling, and it carries little precedential weight. The district judge may adopt, modify or reject it. The ruling also does not decide whether the August 18 force was unlawful, whether the officers retaliated, or whether the footage must be preserved. Those questions remain for the underlying case.