Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768-22/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAKEITH L. MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLGUIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-HBK

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF1

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. No. 145)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SERVE 

ORDER ON LITIGATION COORDINATOR

Pending review before the court is plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief. 

(Doc. No. 145). For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the court deny 

plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. However, the court will advise the litigation coordinator at 

plaintiff’s place of incarceration of his claim that he has been denied access to the law library. 

I. BACKGROUND & FACTS

Plaintiff Lakeith L. McCoy, a state prisoner, initiated this action on May 20, 2015 by 

filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants. (Doc. No. 1). 

The operative complaint for this suit is plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed October 26, 

2015. (Doc. No. 15). The complaint alleges that certain named defendants used excessive force 

1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 

(E.D. Cal. 2019). 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 146 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 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

2

against plaintiff when they beat him and that other identified defendants failed to protect plaintiff

from the beating. (See generally id.). The case is scheduled for a trial setting conference on May 

17, 2021. (Doc. No. 143). 

In the instant motion, plaintiff points to various acts all of which he alleges are being done

for retaliatory purposes due to his seeking civil relief through a Kern County Superior Court 

lawsuit. (Doc. No. 145 at 3-5). Specifically, plaintiff complains that he was wrongfully put into 

an administrative segregation unit on two occasions, that he has had trouble receiving his legal 

mail, that he was wrongfully issued rules violation reports, and that he was wrongfully subjected 

to a strip search and a search of his cell which resulted in the loss of some of his legal documents. 

(See generally id.). Plaintiff seeks a transfer to a different prison due to these alleged actions of 

retaliation from prison staff. (Id. at 5, ¶ 13). Plaintiff acknowledges the incidents of which he 

complains are not the subject of his current operative complaint. (Id. at 3, ¶ 3). 

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and restraining orders, and requires 

that a motion for temporary restraining order include “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 

complaint [that] clearly show that immediate, and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to 

the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as well as written certification 

from the movant’s attorney stating “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should 

not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary 

injunctions, with the exception that preliminary injunctions require notice to the adverse party. 

See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1126 

(E.D. Ca. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Local Rule 231, however, requires notice for 

temporary restraining orders as well, “[e]xcept in the most extraordinary of circumstances,” and 

the court considers whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary 

injunction at an earlier date. L.R 231 (a)-(b) (E.D. Ca. 2019). A temporary restraining order 

“should be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and 

preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 146 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 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

3

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 

423, 439 (1974). 

A temporary restraining order, is “an extraordinary remedy” and may be issued only if 

plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in 

the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his/her favor; (4) that an 

injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

Plaintiff bears the burden of clearly satisfying all four prongs. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). A TRO will not issue if plaintiff merely shows 

irreparable harm is possible – a showing of likelihood is required. Id. at 1131.

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, 633 (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. at 636.

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). 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 146 Filed 04/09/21 Page 3 of 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

4

claims before it.” Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020). If a 

prisoner has been transferred, any sought injunctive relief against the previous facility becomes 

moot if the prisoner “has demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning to [the prison].” 

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991); Florence v. Kernan, 813 F. App'x 325, 326 

(9th Cir. 2020). Finally, state governments have “traditionally been granted the widest latitude in 

the dispatch of [their] own internal affairs.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423, U.S. 362, 378 (1976) (citations 

omitted). This deference applies even more strongly when the court is asked to involve itself in 

the administrative decisions of a prison. See Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987); Sandin v. 

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995). 

III. ANALYSIS

a. Claims for Injunctive Relief

As an initial matter, the complaint does not raise any claims concerning the alleged acts of 

retaliation by prison staff. (See generally Doc. No. 15). Because these claims were not pled in 

the complaint, the court has no authority to issue an injunction addressing these claims. See Pac. 

Radiation Oncology, LLC, 810 F.3d at 633. Further, plaintiff makes no assertion that the named 

defendants in this suit are the same individuals who are currently retaliating against him. The 

court does not have jurisdiction over nonparties in this case, such as unspecified prison 

administrative staff. Thus, the court does not have authority to issue the requested injunctive 

relief sought. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. To the extent plaintiff believes he is being subjected to 

retaliatory actions as a result of his filing of a lawsuit, his proper remedy is to file a civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, after he has exhausted is administrative remedies within the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehibition. Therefore, the court recommends that 

plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be denied.

b. Law Library Access

In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff also states that he has been denied law library 

access for approximately one year. (Doc. No. 145 at 3-4). As an initial matter, the complaint 

does not raise any claims concerning plaintiff’s access to the law library. (See generally Doc. No. 

15); see Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 633. Further, plaintiff makes no assertion that the 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 146 Filed 04/09/21 Page 4 of 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

5

named defendants have any authority over the law library. Plaintiff is informed that the court has 

no jurisdiction over nonparties in this case, such as prison library staff, and cannot order prison 

personnel to provide him library access. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Thus, the court does not have 

authority to issue the requested injunctive relief sought and recommends that plaintiff’s request 

for injunctive relief be denied.

To the extent plaintiff’s limited access to the law library is impeding his ability to 

prosecute this case, plaintiff has other options than seeking injunctive relief. He may seek an 

extension of time with the court to comply with a court-ordered deadline or he may attach a copy 

of this court’s order to his request to access the law library to demonstrate that the litigation of 

this case is ongoing. A review of the docket reveals that plaintiff is not currently under any courtordered deadline in this case. However, as a courtesy, the court will advise the litigation 

coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison of plaintiff’s complaint to ensure that plaintiff is afforded 

adequate opportunities to access the law library, to the extent that doing so is consistent with 

institutional order and security. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (“Prison 

administrators . . . should be accorded 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.”). The clerk’s office will be directed to serve a copy of this 

order on the litigation coordinator.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The clerk of court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the litigation coordinator at 

Kern Valley State Prison.

Further, it is RECOMMEDED:

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 145) be DENIED.

NOTICE TO PARTIES

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)(1). Within thirty (30) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 146 Filed 04/09/21 Page 5 of 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

6

Findings and Recommendations.” 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 9, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 146 Filed 04/09/21 Page 6 of 6