Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David James Pangborn, an incarcerated plaintiff, is suing Carasco and other defendants in the Eastern District of California. On August 13, 2026, the magistrate judge found service of the second amended complaint appropriate on claims that, on an unspecified date, Pangborn was subjected to excessive force and retaliation by the defendants. Those are the only claims the order identifies as being at issue, and it does not decide whether either has merit.
On October 2, 2026, Pangborn filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, docketed as ECF No. 26. According to the order, the motion did not concern the force or retaliation allegations. It described an alleged threat to his safety from a prison security threat group and asked the court to bar California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff from transferring him to several institutions because of those safety concerns. These are Pangborn's allegations; the magistrate judge made no finding about whether any threat exists.
Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson signed the order on October 15, 2026, and it was filed on October 16, 2026. It combines a direct order to the Clerk with findings and recommendations addressed to the district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends that the motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction be denied. This is a recommendation, not a ruling: the motion stays undecided until the assigned district judge acts after the objection period. The stated ground is relatedness. Citing Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015), the order says that when a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have authority to issue an injunction.
Applying that rule, the magistrate judge found that the motion bears no relation to the excessive force and retaliation claims and that the safety and transfer issues fall outside those allegations. The order does not analyze the usual preliminary injunction factors, such as likelihood of success or irreparable harm, and it does not assess how serious the described safety concern is. It does not dismiss any claim, so the excessive force and retaliation claims continue. The order tells Pangborn that if he wishes to litigate the safety and transfer issues, he must file a separate suit in which the complaint and the request for preliminary relief are related.
Separately, the order directs the Clerk to assign a district judge; the docket entry reflects assignment of District Judge Dena M. Coggins alongside Magistrate Judge Peterson. Any party may file written objections within fourteen days of service, captioned as objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, and responses are due within fourteen days after objections are served. The order warns that failure to object within the time allowed may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order, citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998), and Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Key Takeaways
- A request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must be connected to the claims actually pleaded; under the rule the order cites, a court lacks authority to grant relief based on unpleaded claims.
- Here, a request concerning an alleged safety threat and prison transfers was found unrelated to excessive force and retaliation claims, so denial was recommended without weighing the usual injunction factors.
- The order's suggested route for unrelated grievances is a separate lawsuit, not a motion in the existing case, and it expresses no view on the merits of those grievances.
- Nothing is final yet: the parties have fourteen days after service to object, the district judge will decide whether to adopt the recommendation, and a failure to object may waive appellate rights.
Why It Matters
The order is a short, routine application of the Ninth Circuit's requirement that preliminary injunctive relief be tied to the claims in the operative complaint. It shows how a court may respond when an incarcerated litigant uses a pending case to raise new, unrelated concerns about safety or housing: the court does not reach the new concern's merits and points the litigant to a separate action.
Its weight is limited. It is an unpublished magistrate judge's recommendation, not a final judgment, and it carries no precedential force beyond whatever persuasive value a reader assigns it. Still open are whether Pangborn objects, whether the district judge adopts the recommendation, and the merits of the excessive force and retaliation claims, which proceed. Pangborn also remains free to file a new suit on the safety and transfer allegations.