Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01916-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KANDKHOROVA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01916 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER

(Document 23)

Plaintiff Alejandro Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Kandkhorova.

1

Defendant Kandkhorova filed an answer on January 27, 2016.

On January 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a restraining order to prevent his transfer to 

Folsom State Prison.

DISCUSSION

The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this action and to Plaintiff’s claim 

for damages arising from Defendant Kandkhorova’s treatment of Plaintiff’s chronic pain. See e.g., 

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) (“[The] triad of 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on December 15, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-01916-DAD-DLB Document 27 Filed 01/29/16 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

2

injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy 

requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its 

existence.”) (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 

1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or 

controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff’s request to stop an alleged retaliatory prison transfer therefore falls outside of the 

scope of this action, and the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant such relief.

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01916-DAD-DLB Document 27 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2