Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01717/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01717-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JOSEPH GOSZTYLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. LY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-1717 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against three defendants who are all employees of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Eighth Amendment and all concern 

inadequate dental care. Plaintiff seeks damages. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the court issue an order preventing his transfer 

from Mule Creek State Prison.1

 Plaintiff has not been ordered transferred yet but feels such an 

order is imminent. Plaintiff claims that a transfer will result in a violation of his Constitutional 

rights.

1

 Plaintiff titles his motion “Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary 

Restraining Order.” However, the request is neither as this case is not proceeding on any claim 

for injunctive relief. Requests such as plaintiff’s are generally considered under the “All Writs 

Act,” 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which permits the court to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid 

of . . . jurisdiction.” 

Case 2:21-cv-01717-DC-CKD Document 49 Filed 09/27/23 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

The court generally does not have the authority to order CDCR to house a particular 

inmate at any particular prison, Meachucm v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976), and plaintiff’s 

assertions that his Constitutional rights will be violated if he is transferred are vague and 

conclusory. There are no facts presented adequately suggesting a violation of applicable rights 

will occur if plaintiff is transferred. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion that the 

court enter an order prohibiting plaintiff from being transferred away from Mule Creek State 

Prison (ECF No. 46) is denied. 

Dated: September 27, 2023

1

gosz1717.trn

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01717-DC-CKD Document 49 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 2