Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02532/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02532-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-CV-2532-WBS-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 41, for injunctive relief.

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, including

temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, are well established. To prevail, the 

moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser 

standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer 

controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 

Case 2:16-cv-02532-WBS-DMC Document 45 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 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

2

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot, 

however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking 

injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another 

prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an 

expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

Here, Plaintiff seeks an order to prevent the “CHCF-Stockton Defendants” from alleged 

acts of retaliation and denial of access to the courts. See ECF No. 41, pgs. 1-2. Plaintiff asks the 

Court to prevent what he claims are “retaliatory transfers” out of the California Health Care 

Facility (CHCF), where Plaintiff states he is able to obtain necessary medical care. Id. at 6. 

The Court finds that injunctive relief is not appropriate at this time. Specifically, Plaintiff 

has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of this claims in this case, which relate 

to denial of medical care and not alleged retaliation or denial of access to the courts. Further, in 

the current motion Plaintiff merely lists “CHCF-Stockton Defendants” but does not name any 

particular individuals. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is seeking injunctive 

relief against individuals who are actually defendants to this action. Finally, Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury. In this regard, the Court notes that 

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Health Care Facility and Plaintiff has not provided 

any evidence indicating that he will be transferred out of this facility. The Court additionally 

notes that Documents attached to Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief show Plaintiff is 

classified as a “high risk” medical inmate who requires a “renal diet.” Id. at 11. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:16-cv-02532-WBS-DMC Document 45 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 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

3

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief, ECF No. 41, 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 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 13, 2022

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02532-WBS-DMC Document 45 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 3