Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00611/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00611-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERICO ROSAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D, DAVEY, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00611 DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIF’S 

REQUESTS FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF

(Documents 7 and 11)

Plaintiff Federico Rosas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prison inmate proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this 

action on April 24, 2014.1

By separate order, the Court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has 

not yet filed an amended complaint, though the time for filing an amended complaint has not yet 

passed.

On May 27, 2014, and June 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed motions for injunctive relief. He 

requests various forms of relief, including an order (1) prohibiting Defendants from transferring 

him to any 180 degree prison, especially Kern Valley State Prison; (2) preventing Defendants 

from confiscating his property and legal property; (3) preventing Defendants from harassing him; 

(4) prohibiting Defendants from changing Plaintiff’s C-file; and (5) prohibiting Defendants from 

“instigating more discipline” against him. 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on May 9, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00611-DLB Document 13 Filed 07/03/14 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

DISCUSSION

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation 

omitted). “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.” Id. at 20 

(citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend. Until Plaintiff files an 

amended complaint and the Court is able to determine which claims are cognizable and 

appropriately raised in this action, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue any preliminary injunctions. 

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 

1149 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Additionally, some of the orders sought by Plaintiff cannot be issued even assuming 

Plaintiff is able to amend to state one or more cognizable claims. For example, the Court cannot 

interfere with Plaintiff’s housing decisions, and he has no a constitutional right to be incarcerated 

at a particular correctional facility or to be transferred from one facility to another. Meachum v. 

Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25, 96 S.Ct. 2532 (1976). Nor will the Court intervene in the day-to-day 

management of prisons. See e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132, 123 S.Ct. 2162 ( 2003) 

(prison officials entitled to substantial deference); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83, 115 

S.Ct. 2293 (1995) (disapproving the involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day-management 

of prisons). 

Finally, Plaintiff’s requests are based mainly on insufficient speculation. Plaintiff must 

establish that he has standing to seek preliminary injunctive relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493;

Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff “must show that he is 

under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be 

actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged 

Case 1:14-cv-00611-DLB Document 13 Filed 07/03/14 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

conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or 

redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

ORDER

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00611-DLB Document 13 Filed 07/03/14 Page 3 of 3