Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092-5/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

Plaintiff Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to United States magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). 

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff‟s motion for injunctive relief to protect his person and 

property, filed April 25, 2016, and Plaintiff‟s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed May 9, 2016. 

(ECF Nos. 34 & 36.) This action is proceeding against Defendant Aguirre for failure to protect, due 

process violation relating to deprivation of his personal property, equal protection violation, and state 

law negligence. 

///

///

///

///

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. AGUIRRE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF‟S 

MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[ECF Nos. 34 & 36]

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 6
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

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed April 25, 2016

Plaintiff seeks an order directing the United States Marshal service to retain him in their 

custody until the conclusion of this action or until his parole on October 3, 2020. Plaintiff submits that 

on April 15, 2016, another inmate called him “faggot rat,” punched him in the head until he fell down 

then kicked him in the chest and head until he was unconscious. Plaintiff was taken to medical where 

his injuries were documented and he received four stitches on his lower lip. Plaintiff returned to the 

housing unit and inmate “Nutty” said “we‟re gonna have fun with you tonight.” Plaintiff advised 

prison officials and he was moved to the F yard where officer Aguirre works full time. 

On April 16, 2016, at breakfast, Plaintiff saw several inmates who were on F yard with him in 

general population in 2014. In February 2016, officials simply allowed inmates to choose to become 

placed in the sensitive needs yard (SNY) proving officials denied him SNY in deliberate indifference 

to his safety. One inmate told Plaintiff “that Aguirre is not happy with me and I better watch out.” 

On April 16, 2016, Plaintiff was taken to Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield. The x-ray of his ribs 

showed nothing was broken and there was no injury to his head. Plaintiff was kept for observation 

until April 17, 2016, and was returned to F yard. The reference to “faggot rat” refers to Plaintiff being 

transgender. 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “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 (citations omitted). An injunction 

may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 

omitted) (emphasis added). 

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 L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 6
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

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. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III‟s caseor-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env‟t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04. 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.”

 In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks protection from other inmates based on alleged 

retaliation. Injunctive relief may not be based on retaliation, which appears nowhere in the complaint. 

A “request for injunctive relief by itself does not state a cause of action and is properly raised as a 

separate motion.” Mbaba v. Indymac Federal Bank F.S.B., 2010 WL 424363, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2010). 

“An injunction is a remedy, not a separate claim or cause of action. A pleading can ... request 

injunctive relief in connection with a substantive claim, but a separately pled claim or cause of action 

for injunctive relief is inappropriate. Jensen v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1201 

(E.D. Cal. 2010). Because Plaintiff is not proceeding on a claim of interference with his legal mail, 

the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and his motion must be denied. 

Plaintiff has only described past incidents of harassment and has failed to identify what 

specific relief an “order of protection” would entail. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to 

preserve the status quo and prevent future irreparable harm. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 

U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed April 25, 

2016, should be denied.

B. Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed May 9, 2016

In the May 9, 2016, motion, Plaintiff seeks an injunction for the least restrictive housing and 

access to the court and return of his property. Plaintiff contends from February 1, 2015 to the present, 

prison officials threatened to put him in segregation in retaliation for his litigation, and denied his 

repeated requests for a transfer to another prison. On May 1, 2016, Plaintiff had ready to copy and file 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

a motion to file a third amended complaint and injunction. Due to being in the most restrictive 

housing, Plaintiff has lost all his property (legal materials), has been denied access to the law library, 

and has been denied transfer to another prison. 

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must demonstrate he has standing to seek preliminary 

injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield v. United States, 599 

F.3d at 969. “[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.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env‟t, 523 U.S. at 103-04; accord Lujan 

v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560-61. This requires Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of 

suffering an „injury in fact‟ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, 

not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and 

it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 

U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

 Plaintiff‟s claim that officers at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility are denying 

him access to his property, access to the law library and transfer to a different prison cannot provide 

the basis for a preliminary injunction in this action because it is a new assertion of mistreatment 

entirely different from the retaliation claim in this action against Defendant Aguirre. 

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 

U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 

F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he 

suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” 

Nevada Dep‟t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) 

(internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis, 518 

U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 

A prisoner cannot submit conclusory declarations of injury by claiming his access to the courts 

has been impeded. Thus, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial of access without 

further elaboration. Plaintiff must demonstrate “actual injury” from the denial and/or delay of access. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/11/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

The Supreme Court has described the “actual injury” requirement:

[T]he inmate ... must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged 

shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a 

legal claim. He might show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed 

for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the 

prison‟s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. Or that he suffered 

arguably actionable harm that he wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied 

by inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a complaint.

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 

In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate “actual injury” by the failure of 

access to the law library and legal material. The Court notes that on April 25, 2016, the Court 

received and filed a motion for an extension of time to file a third amended complaint, along with the 

motion for preliminary injunction addressed above. (ECF Nos. 33 & 34.) The Court denied Plaintiff‟s 

motion for an extension of time to file a third amended complaint, without prejudice, on April 28, 

2016. (ECF No. 35.) At this juncture, there is no showing that Plaintiff has been prejudiced by any 

alleged denial of access to the legal material and/or the law library. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate that in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief he is likely to suffer actual injury in 

prosecuting his case. “Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant 

granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th 

Cir. 1988), citing Goldies Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Moreover, Plaintiff‟s motion includes allegations against individuals who are not named defendants in 

this action, and the Court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to an 

action pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 

(1969). Plaintiff has provided no basis for this court to interfere with the prison‟s administration of its 

law library and access to legal material, and his request for injunctive relief should be denied. In 

addition, Plaintiff has no substantive liberty interest in being housed in a particular prison. Olim v. 

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976). The pendency 

of this case does not provide Plaintiff with standing to seek relief directed at remedying his current 

conditions of confinement, which involve different circumstances and different prison employees. 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/11/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Plaintiff‟s inability to meet the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” with respect to the 

relief he seeks is fatal to his motion. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-

61). Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s motion for a preliminary injunction filed on May 9, 2016, should be 

denied. 

II.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff‟s motions for a 

preliminary injunction, filed April 25, 2016, and May 9, 2016, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and 

Recommendations.” 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: May 10, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/11/16 Page 6 of 6