Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472-17/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNELL BROWN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. HARRIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01472-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO BE TRANSFERRED BACK TO STATE 

PRISON

(Doc. 66.)

I. BACKGROUND

Cornell Brown (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on September 10, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with the

original Complaint, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Correctional 

Officer (C/O) Harris for excessive force and defendant C/O Nelson for failure to protect 

Plaintiff. (Id.)

On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to issue an order transferring 

him back to state prison. (Doc. 66.) 

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – COURT’S JURISDICTION

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 

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 68 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

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

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for 

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (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 

Arelief [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.@

Discussion

Plaintiff is presently detained at the Kern County Jail in Bakersfield, California. 

Plaintiff requests a court order transferring him back to state prison. Plaintiff cites conditions at 

the jail that prevent him from meeting court deadlines.

 Plaintiff motion must be denied because such relief would not remedy any of the 

claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order requiring 

officials to transfer him back to state prison, because the Court does not have such a case or 

controversy before it in this action. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 

719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 

454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action arises 

from an incident of excessive force by defendants at the California Correctional Institution in 

Tehachapi, California which allegedly occurred in April 2012. Plaintiff now requests a court 

order requiring present or future action by officials who are not defendants in this action. 

Because a court order requiring Plaintiff’s transfer would not remedy any of the claims upon 

which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders, and Plaintiff=s 

motion must be denied. 

Moreover, the court recognizes that prison administrators "should be accorded wideranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment 

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 68 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." 

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 

(1970). Accordingly, as a rule the court defers to the prison's policies and practices in 

transferring inmates from one institution to another.

Plaintiff expresses concern that he will not be able to meet his deadlines in this case

because he lacks access to his legal documents and the law library. It appears from the record 

that Plaintiff’s only pending court deadline in this action is a deadline of April 19, 2015 for the 

completion of discovery. Should Plaintiff require an extension of this deadline or any other 

deadline, he should file a motion before the deadline expires, showing good cause for the 

motion to be granted. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court 

order requiring transferring him back to state prison, filed on March 26, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 68 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 3