United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND APPOINTMENT OF
VADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge.
the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Aaron Joseph
Cunningham's Motion for Order to Show Cause for a
Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF
No. 9, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 15.
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Spokane County Jail.
Defendants have not been served. Having reviewed the
pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully
informed and denies the motions.
asks the Court to order that all pretrial detainees receive
access to all the same privileges as those persons who have
been released on bail. ECF No. 9 at 2. He wants to be allowed
to go to the store to purchase “comfort items”
and to have a television in his cell. He wants access to
microwaves, personal clothes, shoes, jewelry, and hats.
Id. He wants “no locked doors, ”
“smoking areas, ” and visitation with loved ones
at “all hours.” Id.
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff
seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that
the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at
20. To obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff
generally must make the same showing required for a
preliminary injunction. See E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v.
Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 762 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Am.
Trucking Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d
1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009)).
pretrial detainee's claims regarding conditions of
confinement are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause, which guarantees such detainees the right to
be free from conditions of confinement that amount to
punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535
(1979). “Pretrial detainees are entitled to
‘adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical
care, and personal safety.'” Alvarez-Machain v.
United States, 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th
detainee's desire to be free from discomfort does not
rise to the level of a fundamental liberty interest under the
Not every disability imposed during pretrial detention
amounts to “punishment” in the constitutional
sense, however. Once the Government has exercised its
conceded authority to detain a person pending trial, it
obviously is entitled to employ devices that are calculated
to effectuate this detention. Traditionally, this has meant
confinement in a facility which, no matter how modern or how
antiquated, results in restricting the movement of a detainee
in a manner in which he would not be restricted if he simply
were free to walk the streets pending trial. Whether it be
called a jail, a prison, or a custodial center, the purpose
of the facility is to detain. Loss of freedom of choice and
privacy are inherent incidents of confinement in such a
facility. And the fact that such detention interferes with
the detainee's understandable desire to live as
comfortably as possible and with as little restraint as
possible during confinement does not convert the conditions
or restrictions of detention into “punishment.”
Bell, 441 U.S. at 537.
just like prisons, “are responsible for maintaining
internal order and discipline [and] for securing their
institutions against unauthorized access or escape.”
Id. at 548 n.30 (quoting Procunier v.
Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404 (1974)). “There is no
basis for concluding that pretrial detainees pose any lesser
security risk than convicted inmates.” Bell,
441 U.S. at 546 n.28. “Restraints that are reasonably
related to the institution's interest in maintaining jail
security do not, without more, constitute unconstitutional
punishment, even if they are discomforting.”
Id. at 540.
Plaintiff's request for “comforts” for
pretrial detainees clearly does not entitle him to the
extraordinary relief of either a preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order. Thus, the motion is denied.
a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. However,
the Court has discretion to designate counsel pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) in “exceptional
circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d
965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). “When determining whether
‘exceptional circumstances' exist, a court must
consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as
well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
legal issues involved.'” Id. (quoting
Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.
time, the record does not reflect exceptional circumstances.
Plaintiff's situation is not unlike that of other
incarcerated individuals, and the Court has not yet
determined that he has ...