Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00573/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00573-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SHERIFF DEPUTY GONZALEZ, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE: 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION FOR PRISON 

TRANSFER AND OTHER ORDERS 

[Doc. No. 76.] 

Plaintiff Keith Wayne Sekerke appears pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks an 

injunction, asking the Court to order the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to transfer him to a different prison and to order prison guards to 

cease assaulting, and retaliating against, him. (Doc. No. 76.) This Court respectfully 

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be DENIED. 

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force 

when Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee on July 9, 2014. He alleges the Defendant, San 

Diego County Sheriff Deputy Gonzalez, used excessive force against him in a courtroom 

of the San Diego Superior Court. He claims Defendant strangled him and assaulted him in 

various other ways while Plaintiff was restrained in chains. 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking an injunction asking 

the Court to order the CDCR to transfer him to another prison and to order the guards at 

the Kern Valley State Prison to cease assaulting him and retaliating against him for 

attempting to litigate this lawsuit. 

The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to 

preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that 

justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action 

are ultimately determined. Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A 

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or temporary restraining order] 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). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that 

should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations 

omitted) (emphasis in original). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary 

matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 

U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for 

prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the 

least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 

Here, Plaintiff requests a transfer to a different prison because his access to the law 

library at Kern Valley State Prison is allegedly being impeded and the guards have 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

assaulted him for litigating this case. However, the equitable relief Plaintiff requests is not 

sufficiently related to his underlying legal claims to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements 

that apply to federal courts. Plaintiff’s underlying claims are against San Diego County 

Deputy Sheriff Gonzalez and occurred in a courtroom of the San Diego Superior Court. 

His claims do not involve Kern Valley Prison or any CDCR prison guard. Any alleged 

actions taken against him several years after Defendant Gonzalez allegedly assaulted him 

and in a location hundreds of miles away from San Diego are separate and distinct from 

the underlying facts of this case. Thus, ordering Plaintiff transferred to a different prison 

would not address or redress any alleged injury in the instant case. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly 

drawn to correct the violation of his rights at issue in this action. Any alleged guard assaults 

or retaliation against Plaintiff at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California are 

factually disconnected from, and unrelated to, the core facts of this case and are properly 

the subject of a separate section 1983 action if Plaintiff chooses to pursue that route. The 

constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to equitable relief preclude Plaintiff 

from entitlement to generalized relief such as an order directing that prison officials transfer 

him to a different prison. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this 

action and to Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from an incident of alleged excessive 

force on July 9, 2014. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-

04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core 

of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction 

bears the burden of establishing its existence.”) (citation omitted); Am. Civil Liberties 

Union of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may

adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief be DENIED. 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

15-CV-573-JLS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No later 

than May 20, 2017, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 

in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 17, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4