United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This action
proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical claims
against defendant Dr. Kuersten. On November 1, 2019,
plaintiff filed a motion for emergency court order. Plaintiff
seeks an order prohibiting his transfer from California State
Prison, Solano (“CSP-Solano”), because such
transfer would result in plaintiff's temporary loss of
access to his legal materials, and, if transferred to a Level
II facility, he might be required to store his excess legal
materials outside his cell, limiting his access thereto. In
addition, due to his medical condition, if plaintiff is moved
to a dorm, he would not have immediate access to a toilet,
and such housing would impede his ability to litigate his
cases. Plaintiff states there are many Level II inmates at
CSP-Solano, but due to plaintiff's situation, he does not
think he will be granted an override to remain at CSP-Solano.
The court construes plaintiff's request as a motion for
injunctive relief restraining defendants from transferring
plaintiff away from CSP-Solano.
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.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). “Speculative injury
does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant
granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean
Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th
Cir. 1988) (citing Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v.
Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984)).
“[A] plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened
injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive
relief.” Id. (emphasis in original); Herb
Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm't Mgmt., Inc., 736
F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Those seeking
injunctive relief must proffer evidence sufficient to
establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.”).
plaintiff claims that he is due for an annual review during
which his points will drop to a level enabling prison
officials to transfer plaintiff to a Level II facility and
anticipates that he will be denied a request to remain at
CSP-Solano. Plaintiff's allegations of a potential
transfer are too speculative to constitute imminent or
irreparable injury. See Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v.
Superior Court of State of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th
Cir. 1984) (“Speculative injury does not constitute
irreparable injury.”) Moreover, plaintiff is not
entitled to dictate his housing assignments. See Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976); Montayne v.
Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) (It is well settled
that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in
any particular prison, to any particular security
classification, or to any particular housing assignment.). In
addition, it is improper for the court to second guess the
decisions of prison officials regarding the day-to-day
operation of prisons. See Whitley v. Albers, 475
U.S. 312, 322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441
U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (Prison officials are entitled to
“‘wide-ranging deference in the adoption and
execution of policies and practices that in their judgment
are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to
maintain institutional security.'”). If the
classification committee determines that plaintiff's
points have dropped and he should be transferred, plaintiff
may raise any medical concerns about such transfer at his
annual review hearing. Moreover, if plaintiff is transferred
and temporarily deprived of access to his legal materials, he
may file requests for extensions of time to comply with any
pending court deadline.
the court must have jurisdiction over the individuals against
whom plaintiff wishes the order to issue. The instant action
proceeds solely as to Dr. Kuersten, a medical doctor with no
authority over plaintiffs classification or housing.
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395
U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
of the above reasons, the undersigned recommends that
plaintiffs motion be denied.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs motion for
injunctive relief (ECF No. 78) be denied.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response
to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen
days after service of the objections. The parties are advised