Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00749/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00749-39/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 Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

April 28, 2009. At the present time, the final pleadings have not been settled. 

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting the Court’s intervention to 

stay any transfer of Plaintiff out of Valley State Prison until completion or resolution of this action. 

Plaintiff indicates that he recently received notice of a possible prison transfer. Plaintiff therefore

requests that the Court intervene to stay any transfer until completion or resolution of this case so that 

his inmate assistant, Henry C. Navarro, may continue to help him in this action. (ECF No. 171, p. 5.) 

Plaintiff explains that Inmate Navarro has been assisting him in this action since September 6, 

2013. Plaintiff has visual deficiencies that restrict his exposure to bright light and limit his ability to 

sit before a computer and conduct research. As such, Inmate Navarro, who is an Americans with 

Disabilities caregiver, has been conducting all of the research by computer. In fact, Plaintiff and 

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MEDICAL STAFF at CSATF, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00749-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY 

OF TRANSFER DUE TO PENDING CASE

(ECF No. 171) 

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM Document 172 Filed 05/26/15 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

Inmate Navarro have been scheduled together by the institution for Preferred Legal Use of the law 

library. Plaintiff depends upon Inmate Navarro to process this action and contends that a transfer 

would interfere with his access to the courts. (ECF No. 171.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s request 

for a stay of his transfer as one for preliminary injunctive relief. 

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

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (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).

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 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02, 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. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101-02. 

The events at issue in this action occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the California 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. Plaintiff is now housed at Valley State Prison, and the order 

sought from the Court is aimed at maintaining the status quo at that prison. Despite the difficulties 

presented by Plaintiff’s potential transfer and the inability to rely on the assistance of Inmate Navarro

after any such transfer, the case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the 

issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion bears no relation, jurisdictionally, to the past events at the 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility giving rise to this suit. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492-93,129 S.Ct. 1142, 

1148-49 (2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). 

Because the case-or-controversy requirement cannot be met, the pendency of this action provides no 

basis upon which to award Plaintiff injunctive relief. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. The only relief 

Case 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM Document 172 Filed 05/26/15 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

available to Plaintiff in this action, should he prevail, is money damages for the past violation of his 

constitutional rights while housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not obtain injunctive relief against prison officials who are not 

parties to this action, namely officials at Valley State Prison. “A federal court may issue an injunction 

if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 

attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration 

Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.1985).

As a final matter, prison inmates do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a 

particular correctional facility or to remain at a particular correctional facility. Meachum v. Fano, 427 

U.S. 215, 224-25, 96 S.Ct. 2532 (1976); see also Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45, 103 

S.Ct. 1741 (1983). Therefore, Plaintiff may not use a motion for stay or preliminary injunction to 

prevent a prison transfer or to choose his place of confinement. 

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of his 

possible transfer from Valley State Prison pending resolution of this action 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 fourteen (14) 

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 the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM Document 172 Filed 05/26/15 Page 3 of 3