Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680-7/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 

NATHAN HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1680 JAM AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 Before this court is plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion requesting that he be 

transferred out of the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”) and into federal custody. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends 

that the motion be denied. 

I. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION 

 Plaintiff’s present motion1 asks the court to “remov[e] him from Defendant CDCR [and] 

1

 This is plaintiff’s third request for a preliminary injunction, and it reflects the same theories for 

relief as the two previous requests which were denied. Compare ECF No. 38, with ECF No. 1 at 

5-7, 11; ECF No. 6. 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 39 Filed 07/19/21 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 

all other Def[endant] custody [in order] to avoid death or serious injury.” ECF No. 38 at 1. 

Plaintiff alleges that “Def[endant] CDCR is actively seeking to have [him] attacked by gang 

members,” that he has “been injured / maimed, [and] set up / harassed at [four] prisons,” and that 

he is “in jeopardy of being killed or seriously injured again”2 Id. at 1, 6. Accordingly, plaintiff 

asks that he be “transfer[red] completely out of CDCR state custody into federal custody.” See 

ECF No. 38 at 6. A transfer to another CDCR prison “won’t help,” plaintiff argues, because 

“corrupt C/O[]s will call to those prisons [and] tell lies or truth to get . . . equally corrupt coworker to continue . . . their harassment.” Id. 

II. DISCUSSION 

 A. Plaintiff Seeks Relief That is Unavailable 

 To the extent that the motion requests plaintiff’s transfer into federal custody, it must be 

denied. The federal Bureau of Prisons houses those offenders committed to it upon conviction 

and sentencing in a federal court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621. There is no indication that plaintiff has 

any outstanding federal sentence that could support BOP custody. Even if he did, the 

determination of priority of custody and service of sentence between state and federal sovereigns 

is a matter of comity to be resolved by federal and state executive branches. It is not a judicial 

function. See United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684-85 (9th Cir. 1980). 

 In any event, courts regularly defer to prison officials’ decisions on internal matters. See, 

e.g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995) (“[F]ederal courts ought to afford appropriate 

deference and flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment.”); Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974) (“We should not be too ready to exercise oversight and put 

aside the judgment of prison administrators.”). Inmates have no constitutional right to any 

particular prison placement. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Neal v. Shimoda, 

131 F.3d 818, 828 (9th Cir. 1997). 

//// 

2

 Plaintiff states that he has “still not [been] treated for previous injuries inflicted.” ECF No. 38 

at 6. However, plaintiff fails to provide any information whatsoever about these alleged previous 

injuries. See generally ECF No. 38. 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 39 Filed 07/19/21 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 

 B. Failure to Show Likelihood of Irreparable Harm 

 To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate that (1) he is likely to 

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

(3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Here, although plaintiff repeats his 

claims of imminent life-threatening danger, there continues to be a complete absence of evidence 

to support the allegations. Plaintiff alleges that he was “permanently maimed and severely 

injured” after the court denied his second preliminary injunction request in November 2019. ECF 

No. 38 at 4. However, plaintiff does not provide any specific facts regarding the nature of this 

alleged permanent injury or the circumstances under which it was sustained, and no medical 

records or other documentary evidence is provided. 

 Because there has been a complete failure to establish the likelihood of irreparable harm, 

the court need not address the other Winter factors. Plaintiff not met his burden, and the motion 

for a preliminary injunction must be denied. 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 

injunction, ECF No. 38, 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 fourteen days 

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

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991). 

DATED: July 19, 2021 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 39 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 3