Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01324/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01324-12/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

COREY MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR AN EMERGENCY 

RESTRAINING ORDER BE DENIED

(ECF No. 54)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

TWENTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Corey Mitchell, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has alleged a claim under the Eighth Amendment 

against Defendant Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Chavez and Defendant Sergeant Sheldon for 

failure to protect. 

According to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11), Plaintiff had been a 

target of the “2-5” prison gang. Plaintiff had multiple prior altercations with “2-5” gang 

members while incarcerated. Despite Plaintiff’s warnings prison officials that the “2-5” gang 

intended to kill him, he was placed in a cell with Baylor, a “2-5” gang member. On September 

5, 2011, Defendants Chavez and Sheldon ignored Plaintiff’s concerns regarding his safety and

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 59 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 5
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

directed Plaintiff to accept a cellmate, Baylor, who thereafter stabbed Plaintiff in the chest while 

they were incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). 

This Court issued findings and recommendations on July 19, 2016, recommending that 

Defendant Chavez’s motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 50.) The findings and 

recommendations were adopted in full on September 14. (ECF No. 53.) The next day, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for emergency restraining order. (ECF No. 54.)

The Court held a telephonic status conference on October 20, 2016, wherein the Court 

discussed the pending motions and scheduling for the remainder of the case. Plaintiff orally 

presented a motion to appoint counsel, which was denied without prejudice for reasons stated on 

the record. Separate orders will issue concerning the scheduling of a settlement conference, 

pretrial conference, trial, and related deadlines. An order will be issued separately concerning 

Plaintiff’s discovery motion (Doc. 48). For the following reasons, it is recommended that 

Plaintiff’s motion for emergency restraining order (Doc. 54) be denied.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Injunctive Relief

With respect to preliminary injunctive relief regarding prison conditions, federal statutory 

law provides that such relief must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 

correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 

necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Finally, the Court must give 

“substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice 

system caused by the preliminary relief ...” Id.

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, “is an extraordinary remedy never 

awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, (2008) (citation 

omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a[n] . . . 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). 

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 59 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the Court 

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 

454 U.S. 464, 471(1982). Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has 

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 

attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States 

Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.1985). The pendency of an action related to 

conduct by specific prison officials however, does in itself not give the Court jurisdiction over 

prison officials in general. Id.; see also Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Thus, the Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties in pending action and to the viable legal 

claims upon which this action is proceeding. Id.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff is presently housed at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) in Susanville, 

California. He seeks an injunction preventing a return transfer to KVSP, where Plaintiff states 

that he has had several altercations with “2-5” gang members, including Baylor.

The defendants have not submitted evidence in opposition to the emergency restraining 

order request. However, the Deputy Attorney General representing Defendant Chavez informed 

the Court that it was his understanding from speaking to prison officials that Plaintiff is not 

presently set to return to KVSP. Rather, it was the Deputy Attorney General’s understanding 

that Plaintiff would be transferred to either the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) or 

Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”); not KVSP.

Plaintiff responded to this information by indicating that he would prefer to stay at 

HDSP. Plaintiff stated that he believed that both CCI and SVSP housed “2-5” gang members, 

and he would be subject to the same threat of attack at those institutions as he would be at KVSP.

While the Court takes Plaintiff’s safety concerns seriously, this Court recommends denial 

of the request for injunction to prevent transfer. First and foremost, the requested injunction 

goes beyond the scope of the complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns a specific attack by 

another inmate who was housed with Plaintiff some years ago. Plaintiff’s requested relief 

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 59 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 5
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

4

concerns transfers to other prisons based on the potential presence of 2-5 gang members, 

regardless of whether they are housed with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide a 

basis to find that transfer to another prison would violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or be 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety and security.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s requested relief is too broad in that Plaintiff has rejected three 

potential prisons. Plaintiff asserts that there is a possibility that he will be under threat of attack 

by “2-5” gang members at KVSP, CCI, and SVSP. Avoiding three potential prisons based on a 

perceived threat is, again, not narrowly tailored to address the specific conduct at issue in 

Plaintiff’s complaint.

The Court has limited authority to dictate prison transfers because such an order must be

“narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires 

preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a)(2). Prison transfers are within the jurisdiction of the CDCR, who is not a party to this 

action. An order preventing the CDCR from transferring Plaintiff to certain institutions would 

go beyond the scope of the complaint and invade upon the prison administrators’ role in ensuring 

the safety and security of all of their inmates. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S. Ct. 

1861, 1878, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979) (providing that the problems that arise in the day-to-day 

operation of a corrections facility are not susceptible of easy solutions, and therefore, “[p]rison 

administrators therefore should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and 

execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order 

and discipline and to maintain institutional security.”).

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an 

emergency restraining order (Doc. 54) be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 59 Filed 11/01/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed 

within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 59 Filed 11/01/16 Page 5 of 5