Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01347-4/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

TYRELL AINSWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUNTER,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-1347 DAD CSK P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief 

filed July 8, 2024. (ECF No. 17.) For the reasons stated herein, this Court recommends that 

plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief be denied. 

II. Legal Standard

Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). “The 

purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until 

a trial on the merits can be held.” Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981).

///

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 18 Filed 07/10/24 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

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed 

on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 

[3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. A plaintiff must “make a showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test 

to obtain a preliminary injunction. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 

(9th Cir. 2011). 

The injunctive relief an applicant requests must relate to the claims brought in the 

complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 

2015) (“When a Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 

court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Absent a nexus between the injury 

claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the court lacks the authority to grant plaintiff 

any relief. Id.; see also Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020) (the 

court’s jurisdiction is “limited to the parties in this action” and the pendency of an action “does 

not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over the conditions of an 

inmate’s confinement unrelated to the claims before it.”).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 

litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 

“[p]reliminary injunctive 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); Villery v. California Dep’t of Corr., 

2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the PLRA 

places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, 

and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the 

bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that 

binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 

the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 

///

///

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 18 Filed 07/10/24 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

III. Background

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on June 10, 2024. (ECF No. 

11.) The only named defendant is California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) physical 

therapist Hunter. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that on July 14, 2022, defendant Hunter retaliated 

against plaintiff for making a comment about defendant Hunter by filing a false rules violation 

report against plaintiff. (Id. at 2-3.) On June 14, 2024, this Court recommended that this action 

be dismissed on the grounds that plaintiff failed to state a potentially colorable retaliation claim 

because plaintiff did not engage in protected speech. (ECF No. 12.) On July 1, 2024, plaintiff 

filed objections to the June 14, 2024 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 16.)

On June 26, 2024, plaintiff filed his first motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 14.) At 

the time plaintiff filed this motion, plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. (Id. at 

1.) On July 1, 2024, this Court recommended that plaintiff’s first motion for injunctive relief be 

denied because plaintiff sought injunctive relief against individuals who are not parties to this 

action and because the claims raised in plaintiff’s motion were unrelated to the claims raised in 

the amended complaint against defendant Hunter. (ECF No. 15.)

IV. Second Motion for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief reflects that plaintiff is now incarcerated at 

the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. (ECF No. 17 at 1.) Plaintiff 

alleges that he was transferred to the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility without his property and 

legal materials. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that being housed without his property and legal materials 

is a form of torture. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that prison staff sent plaintiff to R.J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility hoping that plaintiff would “go suicidal.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he 

suffers from emotional and physical stress. (Id.) As relief, plaintiff requests that the Court order 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Director to stop moving plaintiff 

without his property and legal materials. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also requests an extension of time if 

there are any pending deadlines. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief seeks an order against the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Director, who is not a defendant in this 

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 18 Filed 07/10/24 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

action. The only defendant in this action is defendant Hunter, a physical therapist at CSP-Sac. 

The Court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending 

before it. See Zenith v. Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). For this 

reason, plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief should be denied. In addition, the claims 

raised and relief sought in the pending motion are unrelated to the claims raised in the amended 

complaint against defendant Hunter. For this additional reason, plaintiff’s second motion for 

injunctive relief should be denied.1 See Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d at 636. Finally, based on 

the June 14, 2024 findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action, 

plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief should be denied because plaintiff fails to 

demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.

Based on plaintiff’s new address reflected in his second motion for injunctive relief, the 

Clerk of the Court is directed to amend court records to reflect plaintiff’s new address and to reserve the July 1, 2024 findings and recommendations on plaintiff at this new address. The only 

pending deadline at the time plaintiff filed his second motion for injunctive relief in this action is 

the deadline for objections to the July 1, 2024 findings and recommendations regarding plaintiff’s 

first motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff is granted an additional fourteen (14) days after being 

served with this order to file written objections to the July 1, 2024 findings and recommendations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for extension of time (ECF No. 17) is granted. Plaintiff is granted 

an additional fourteen (14) days after being served with this order to file written 

objections to the July 1, 2024 findings and recommendations; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend court records to reflect plaintiff’s new 

address at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility; 

1

 The Court notes that in plaintiff’s first motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff also sought 

injunctive relief against the CDCR Director and also raised claims unrelated to the claims in the 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 14 at 3.) This Court’s July 1, 2024 findings and 

recommendations recommended that plaintiff’s first motion for injunctive relief be denied 

because plaintiff sought injunctive relief against individuals who are not parties to this action and 

because the claims raised in plaintiff’s motion were unrelated to the claims raised in the amended 

complaint against defendant Hunter. (ECF No. 15.)

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 18 Filed 07/10/24 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

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve the July 1, 2024 findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 15) on plaintiff at his new address; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief 

(ECF No. 17) 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 and serve a copy on all parties. 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 10, 2024

Ains1347.inj(2)

2

Case 2:24-cv-01347-DAD-CSK Document 18 Filed 07/10/24 Page 5 of 5