Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01966/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01966-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

JOHN AUBRY TURNER,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1966-GPC-NLS

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’s

REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF PREVENTING

TRANSFER TO ANOTHER

FACILITY

v.

KIM HOLLAND, Warden, California

Correctional Institute,

Respondent.

Petitioner John AubryTurner (“Petitioner”) proceeds pro se in this habeas corpus

matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a letter

stating that “if transfer from this facility is allowable during these procedures,

[Petitioner] would request a Court Order prohibiting transfer from this facility prior to

the Courts decision.” (ECF No. 10.) The Court construes this language as a motion for

preliminary injunctive relief preventing Petitioner’s transfer to another correctional

facility.

As an initial matter, it is unclear whether injunctive relief is available to a

petitioner proceeding under § 2254. See Adame v. Salazar, No. 08-cv-2844-JFW-RZ,

2008 WL 2019599, (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2008); see also Case v. Miller-Stout, No. 12-cv0187-MJP-MAT, 2013 WL 104835 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2013). Even if injunctive

relief were available, petitioner has failed to establish that he meets the four necessary

elementsrequired to obtain such relief. See M.R. v. Dreyfus, F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.

- 1 - 3:14-cv-1966-GPC-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-01966-GPC-NLS Document 14 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 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

2011) (“A preliminary injunction is proper if there is a likelihood of irreparable injury

to plaintiff; there are serious questions going to the merits; the balance of hardships tips

sharply in favor of the plaintiff; and the injunction is in the public interest.”) (citation

omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 3:14-cv-1966-GPC-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-01966-GPC-NLS Document 14 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 2