Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01449/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01449-3/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

PAUL A. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01449-KES-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION OR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF No. 25)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Paul A. Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 14, 2024, the Court 

screened the first amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action 

proceed against Defendant Castillo for a Fourth Amendment violation for conducting the first 

strip search with an activated body camera and/or patio camera, and all other claims and 

defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be 

granted. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 17, 2024, (ECF No. 24), and the 

findings and recommendations are pending before the assigned District Judge.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of an injunction or temporary 

restraining order, filed June 13, 2024. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff states that on April 22, 2024, 

Plaintiff received an order from the Superior Court of Kern County compelling Plaintiff to attend 

Case 1:23-cv-01449-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 06/13/24 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

2

an arraignment, and requiring Plaintiff’s attendance, in Case No. DF018192A. Plaintiff states 

that he is in fear for his physical safety because all of the Defendant(s) listed in the instant civil 

complaint are still currently employed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) in Delano, and may 

subject Plaintiff to further retaliation for having brought the matters at issue before the Court. 

Plaintiff is currently housed at Centinela State Prison (“Centinela”), thus there is no risk of flight 

from answering to the criminal complaint, and the availability of video court or other electronic 

means does not require Plaintiff to be physically appear in court. Plaintiff acknowledges that this 

Court may not have jurisdiction to issue the requested order under ordinary circumstances, but the 

issue here is whether either of the named parties to this suit will refrain from intimidating, 

threatening or using coercion against Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that the complaint alleges a claim 

of retaliation and also a claim that at least one defendant (Castillo) has previously sought to incite 

other inmates as well as coworkers to do harm to Plaintiff. To prevent further deprivation of 

Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff therefore requests an injunction to preclude his transfer to KVSP to 

await adjudication of his criminal matter, or alternatively a temporary restraining order 

prohibiting Plaintiff’s transfer to KVSP until the Court resolves this matter. Plaintiff asserts that 

there would be no adverse impact to either the criminal or civil proceedings by granting his 

request. Additionally, Plaintiff would suffer adverse effects, such as removal from his 

rehabilitative class at Centinela and the loss of contact visits due to the fact that Plaintiff will be 

housed in administrative segregation until the criminal matter is adjudicated. Plaintiff also 

believes that the only reason the criminal charges were filed against him was due to Defendant 

Castillo’s influence among his coworkers at the facility. (Id.)

II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

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

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (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 

Case 1:23-cv-01449-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 06/13/24 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

3

omitted).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 

464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 

power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 

the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 

of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right.”

Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 

in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 

U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 

Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 

complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

As explained above, although the undersigned found that Plaintiff’s complaint stated a 

cognizable Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Castillo for conducting the first strip 

search with an activated body camera and/or patio camera, those findings and recommendations 

have not been adopted by the assigned District Judge. As such, this action does not yet proceed 

on any cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made 

an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over any defendant or any 

Case 1:23-cv-01449-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 06/13/24 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

4

other prison staff at KVSP or any other institution. Even if the Court had such jurisdiction, 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility 

(or to not be transferred from one facility to another). Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 

(1976); McCune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 38 (2002). The Court declines to intercede in the security 

issue presented by preventing placement of inmates in particular housing.

Finally, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to challenge an order issued by the Kern County 

Superior Court by filing a request with this Court. Based on the facts presented, the Court lacks 

the authority to prevent enforcement of the order of another court in Plaintiff’s unrelated criminal 

action. If Plaintiff believes that he will be placed in physical danger if he is transferred for his 

criminal proceedings, he should file a request with the Kern County Superior Court regarding a 

possible remote appearance in that case.

III. Recommendation

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of an 

injunction or temporary restraining order, (ECF No. 25), be denied.

These Findings and Recommendation will be 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 fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01449-KES-BAM Document 26 Filed 06/13/24 Page 4 of 4