Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00788/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00788-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF E. WALKER,

CDCR #F-11343,

Case

No. 

14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF”S

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR

FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

(ECF Nos. 17, 21)

vs.

C/O D. HUBERT. et al.,

Defendants.

 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF Nos. 17, 21.) Plaintiff has also filed a

letter with the Court in which he seeks a status on his “request for certificate of appeal

(COA)” regarding the Court’s initial denial of his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 19.) A review of the Court’s docket

does not indicate that Plaintiff ever filed a COA nor did he file a separate notice of

appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Regardless, neither is necessary in this

matter asthe Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and is permitting him

to proceed IFP in this matter. (ECF No. 14.)

1 14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Case 3:14-cv-00788-BTM-KSC Document 22 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 4
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

I. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Here, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion

for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF Nos. 17, 21.) Plaintiff appears to be seeking two

different forms of relief from this Court: (1) an injunction preventing his return to the

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”); and (2) a dismissal of all pending

disciplinary charges against him.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction isto preserve the status quo if the balance

of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene

to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. 

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “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.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)

(citation omitted)(citations omitted). 

In addition to thistraditional test, the NinthCircuit has also applied an “alternative

standard,” whereby injunctive relief may issue when Plaintiff demonstrates “either a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury”

or that “serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his

favor.” Ranchers Cattleman Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. United

States Dept. of Ag., 415 F.3d 1078, 1092 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Save Our Sonoran, Inc.

v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005)).

1. Request for Injunctive Relief - RJD

In Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order,

Plaintiffseeks an order fromthisCourt preventing his purported transfer fromhis current

place of incarceration to RJD. Plaintiff claims he is being “return to [RJD] March 5,

2015.” (Pl.’s Mtn for Prelim, Inj. (ECF No. 17) at 8.) The Court received Plaintiff’s

motion on March 6, 2015, one day after the purported transfer. However, in Plaintiff’s

2 14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Case 3:14-cv-00788-BTM-KSC Document 22 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 4
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

separate Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, he states that “he is due to be put up

for transfer back to (RJD)” but fails to provide a specific date or any documentation

indicating when this alleged transfer will take place.

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Healthcare Facility located in

Stockton, California. None of the named Defendants in this matter are alleged to reside

1

in Stockton or have any role involving Plaintiff’s potential transfer from CHF to another

CDCR facility. Therefore, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over any

individual at CHF who would be involved in any decision to transfer Plaintiff from that

facility. See FED.R.CIV.P.65(d)(2). Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or

Temporary Restraining Order regarding the purported transfer to RJD is DENIED

without prejudice.

2. Request for Injunctive Relief - Rules Violation Report

Plaintiff has also supplied the Court with a number of exhibits that indicate

Plaintiff was charged with a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) and charged with battery

on a peace officer. (Pl.’s Mtn. for TRO (ECF No. 21) at 21.) In his Motion, while not

entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking relief from this Court to dismiss his

pending disciplinary charges so that they will not interfere with his purported parole

date. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff further indicates that if Defendant Heddy “is also willing to

have RVR recalled so as to remove D.A. [referral], so Plaintiff can go home May 2015,

then [Plaintiff] is willing to consider not pursuing legal action on him only.” (Id. at 9.)

Here, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding this

claim. Plaintiff’s suggestion that the Court issue any sort of injunctive relief regarding

his pending disciplinary charges is not the type of relief that can be sought in this action. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973) (holding that a person in state

custody may not use § 1983 to challenge “the very fact or duration of . . . confinement”

by seeking “a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release

from that imprisonment.”)

See 1http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx (last visited March 11, 2015).

3 14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Case 3:14-cv-00788-BTM-KSC Document 22 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED

without prejudice.

II. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby:

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for

Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 17, 21) without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 16, 2015

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

4 14cv0788 BTM (KSC)

Case 3:14-cv-00788-BTM-KSC Document 22 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 4