Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dallinn Surnson, a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California on September 3, 2026. The complaint names a superior court judge, a public defender, a district attorney, and the San Joaquin County Superior Court. It was submitted on a civil rights form but carries two cover pages, one titled "Habeas Corpus Lawsuit" and one titled "Civil Rights Lawsuit," each marked "rough draft." Surnson alleges that he is unlawfully imprisoned because of mistaken identity and false accusations made in Nevada County, and that he has been wrongly held for nearly twelve years. He also alleges that the officials in his San Joaquin County criminal case would not grant a continuance so he could file a Marsden motion, a Faretta motion, a habeas action, and a civil rights suit. He asks the court to dismiss the charges and order his release. The complaint had not yet been screened.
After filing, Surnson submitted a request for court intervention (ECF No. 6), a motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 7), and a motion for injunction (ECF No. 8). These papers contain his allegations, not findings. They assert that two physicians declared him incompetent to stand trial without testing him, that a Nevada County Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship does not exist or should be cancelled, that San Joaquin County has declined to impose a Murphy's conservatorship, and that he would be killed if sent to a Nevada County state hospital. He also sent a letter styled a Notice of Imminent Danger and Request for Forms (ECF No. 9), asking how to prepare and file motions.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim issued an order and findings and recommendations. The denial is only a recommendation. The court recommends that the three requests be denied, and the matter is referred to District Judge Dena M. Coggins, who has not yet ruled. Surnson has fourteen days after service to file written objections, and failing to do so may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
The first ground rests on the injunction standard. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or TRO 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. Under Preiser v. Rodriguez, a challenge to the fact or duration of confinement that seeks release belongs in habeas corpus, while conditions of confinement are challenged in a civil rights action. The court found that a habeas petition and a civil rights complaint cannot be brought in one action. Because Surnson filled out the civil rights form, the court preliminarily construed the case as a civil rights action. It found that the court has no authority in that action to dismiss criminal charges or order release, so he had not shown a likelihood of success.
In the alternative, and "in an abundance of caution," the court found that the motions raise matters absent from the complaint: competency proceedings and the LPS and Murphy's conservatorships. Citing Pacific Radiation Oncology v. Queen's Medical Center, the court stated that it lacks authority to issue an injunction based on claims not pleaded in the complaint. On the order side, the clerk was directed to assign a district judge, and ECF No. 9 was deemed resolved. The request for forms was denied as a request for legal advice. The court found the imminent-danger statement unsupported and declined to treat the letter as a request for injunctive relief.
Key Takeaways
- A request for dismissal of criminal charges or release from custody is habeas-type relief, and a court treating a filing as a section 1983 action will find no likelihood of success on it.
- Injunctive relief must be tied to claims pleaded in the operative complaint, so new allegations in a motion about competency proceedings or conservatorships cannot support an injunction.
- A bare statement of imminent danger in a letter, without support, was not construed as a request for injunctive relief.
- A request for instructions on how to prepare and file motions was denied because the court cannot give legal advice.
- This is an unreported magistrate judge recommendation with no precedential weight, and nothing is final until the district judge acts.
Why It Matters
The order shows how federal courts screen emergency requests from self-represented detainees. It applies the Winter standard, the Preiser line between habeas and civil rights relief, and the rule that injunctions must follow the pleadings. A litigant who wants release or dismissal of charges must use the proper habeas vehicle, and one who wants emergency relief must first plead the underlying claims.
Much remains open. The complaint has not been screened, and the court made no finding on the truth of any allegation. It did not decide whether any claim could proceed in a separate action, and the district judge may adopt, modify, or reject the recommendation after any objections.