Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01347-3/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRELL AINSWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUNTER,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-1347 DAD CSK P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed June 

26, 2024. (ECF No. 14.) For the reasons stated herein, this Court recommends that plaintiff’s 

motion for injunctive relief be denied. 

II. Legal Standard

Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). “The 

purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until 

a trial on the merits can be held.” Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981).

///

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 15 Filed 07/01/24 Page 1 of 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

2

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed 

on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 

[3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. A plaintiff must “make a showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test 

to obtain a preliminary injunction. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 

(9th Cir. 2011). 

The injunctive relief an applicant requests must relate to the claims brought in the 

complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 

2015) (“When a Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 

court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Absent a nexus between the injury 

claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the court lacks the authority to grant plaintiff 

any relief. Id.; see also Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020) (the 

court’s jurisdiction is “limited to the parties in this action” and the pendency of an action “does 

not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over the conditions of an 

inmate’s confinement unrelated to the claims before it.”).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 

litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 

“[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 

correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 

necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Villery v. California Dep’t of Corr., 

2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the PLRA 

places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, 

and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the 

bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that 

binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 

the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 

///

///

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 15 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 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

3

III. Background

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on June 10, 2024. (ECF No. 

11.) The only named defendant is California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) physical 

therapist Hunter. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that on July 14, 2022, defendant Hunter retaliated 

against plaintiff for making a comment about defendant Hunter by filing a false rules violation 

report against plaintiff. (Id. at 2-3.) On June 14, 2024, this Court recommended that this action 

be dismissed on the grounds that plaintiff failed to state a potentially colorable retaliation claim 

because plaintiff did not engage in protected speech. (ECF No. 12.) 

IV. Motion for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 14 at 1.) In the 

pending motion, plaintiff alleges that the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) 

continues to provoke, attack and harass plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that prison staff keep 

moving plaintiff to block plaintiff’s programming. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that upon his arrival at

Kern Valley State Prison on June 18, 2024, he was put in ASU-1. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 

prison staff were aggressive and told plaintiff that he could not wear his personal shoes. (Id.) 

After plaintiff became agitated, Lieutenant Rodriguez told plaintiff that plaintiff was going to 

ASU-2. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that suddenly his cell was “red-lined ‘broken.’” (Id.) Plaintiff 

alleges that the Lieutenant told plaintiff, “You like to do lawsuits. I don’t care. I’ve been to 

federal court.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that an unknown correctional officer stole some of 

plaintiff’s property. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he is under attack and in imminent danger. (Id.)

As relief, plaintiff requests that the Court order CDCR Director Macomber to instruct 

wardens to stop approving in-cell audio/video surveillance. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that prison 

staff use in-cell audio/video surveillance to harass plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff also requests that the 

Court order prison officials to stop harassing plaintiff, and transfer plaintiff to California State 

Prison-Lancaster, the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, or the California Health Care 

Facility. (Id.) Plaintiff also requests the names of the officers investigating plaintiff. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s motion seeks injunctive relief against CDCR Director Macomber and prison 

officials at Kern Valley State Prison, who are not defendants in this action. The only defendant in 

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 15 Filed 07/01/24 Page 3 of 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

4

this action is defendant Hunter, a physical therapist at CSP-Sac. The Court is unable to issue an 

order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith v. Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief should be denied. 

In addition, the claims raised and relief sought in the pending motion are unrelated to the 

claims raised in the amended complaint against defendant Hunter. For this additional reason, 

plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied. See Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d at 636.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 

relief (ECF No. 14) be denied.

These 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)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 1, 2024

Ains1347.inj

2

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 15 Filed 07/01/24 Page 4 of 4