(PC) Gosztyla v. Jenkins

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RICHARD GOSZTYLA, No. 2:22-cv-01706-DJC-EFB (PC) 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 A. JENKINS, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 19 ECF No. 1. He has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order prohibiting prison officials 20 from transferring him out of Mule Creek State Prison. ECF No. 25. For the reasons that follow, 21 the motion must be denied. 22 I. Background 23 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims that defendant Jenkins improperly searched him 24 in violation of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments and retaliated against him in violation of the 25 First Amendment. ECF No. 7. In his motion for a temporary restraining order, plaintiff alleges 26 that he “has been set to be transferred to Corcoran State Prison Level II Facility” in retaliation for 27 “his multiple filed formal grievances and legal actions against defendant as well as other Mule 28 Creek staff.” ECF No. 25 at 1. According to plaintiff, an “override” entitles him to stay at Mule 1 Creek at least through September 2023, but prison officials have decided not to honor it. Id. at 1- 2 2. The proposed transfer would disrupt plaintiff’s education programming, interfere with his 3 mental health, and disrupt his visitation from family members. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also states that 4 CDCR knows that Corcoran will be dangerous for plaintiff, but he does not specify what dangers 5 he faces there. Id. Plaintiff has filed grievances about the transfer, but they have been rejected 6 because the decision to transfer plaintiff is not yet final. Id. 7 II. Analysis 8 A temporary restraining order may be issued upon a showing “that immediate and 9 irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 10 in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); Haw. County Green Party v. Clinton, 980 F. Supp. 11 1160, 1164 (D. Haw. 1997) (“The standards for granting a temporary restraining order and a 12 preliminary injunction are identical.”); cf. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 13 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (observing that an analysis of a preliminary injunction is 14 “substantially identical” to an analysis of a temporary restraining order). The purpose of the 15 order is to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm “just so long as is necessary to 16 hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 17 423, 439 (1974). 18 To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate “that he is likely 19 to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 20 relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 21 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 22 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). 23 Plaintiff has not made the showing required to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. He 24 offers no argument or evidence concerning the merits, balance of equities, or public interest, and 25 offers only unsubstantiated and somewhat vague statements about the harm he will face if 26 transferred to Corcoran. 27 More importantly, plaintiff’s motion addresses conduct that is not a subject of this action 28 (the decision by prison officials to transfer him), and therefore fails to demonstrate either a 1 likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question on the merits. Generally, such 2 allegations must be pursued through the prison administrative process and then litigated in a 3 separate action. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) 4 and Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (together holding that claims 5 must be exhausted prior to the filing of the original or supplemental complaint); Jones v. Felker, 6 No. CIV S-08-0096 KJM EFB P, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13730, at *11-15, 2011 WL 533755 7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011). 8 Nonetheless, where circumstances warrant, the court has authority to intervene regarding 9 conduct unrelated to the case’s claims under The All Writs Act. That Act gives federal courts the 10 authority to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and 11 agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). The United States Supreme 12 Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in appropriate circumstances against persons 13 who, “though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to 14 frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice.” United 15 States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 173-74 (1977). To obtain an order under the All Writs Act, 16 the requested order must be “necessary.” This language requires that the relief requested is not 17 available through some alternative means. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 537 (1999). 18 The instant motion does not show that the court’s intervention is necessary. Plaintiff 19 retains alternative means to address the transfer; i.e., the prison’s administrative process. 20 Moreover, plaintiff’s motion does not demonstrate that the transfer would interfere significantly 21 with his ability to litigate this action such that the court’s intervention is justified. Accordingly, 22 the court recommends that the motion be denied at this time, without prejudice to any civil rights 23 action petitioner may file in the future alleging retaliation and/or interference with his right to 24 access the courts. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 iI. Recommendation 2 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s July 27, 2023 motion for a 3 || temporary restraining order (ECF No. 25) be DENIED. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 6 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 9 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 10 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 1] 12 || Dated: August 9, 2023. □□ PDEA 13 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28