LAFONZO R. TURNER, No. 2:23-cv-0954 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants improperly confiscated his durable medical equipment. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, the court will direct plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and recommend that his motion for injunctive relief be denied. On May 26, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) However, plaintiff has not filed an in forma pauperis application or paid the filing fee. Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Plaintiff states that he has been transported from the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and is currently in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff. (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Plaintiff moves the court for an order from this court to return him to Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), to “waive 30 day on court dates, and have [him] transferred to Lancaster State Prison to be transported to and fro [sic] to Lancaster Court for all future court dates.” (Id. at 2.) He argues an order is necessary because he cannot litigate the instant case because he does not have his legal property. I. Legal Standards Relative to Injunctive Relief A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after Winter). The principle purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial. //// In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction 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 the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Further, an injunction against individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . . . resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party . . . .”).1 Further, preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate until the court finds that the plaintiff’s complaint presents cognizable claims. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; [however] it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). II. Analysis Plaintiff is not entitled to the requested injunctive relief at this time. It is well settled that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in any particular prison, to any particular security classification, or to any particular housing assignment. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (18983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976); Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976). Additionally, plaintiff’s request for an order returning him to CDCR custody should be denied because it is unrelated to plaintiff’s underlying claim that defendants improperly confiscated his durable medical equipment. See Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding there must be a “sufficient nexus between the request in a motion for injunctive relief and the underlying claim itself.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LAFONZO R. TURNER, No. 2:23-cv-0954 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants improperly confiscated his durable medical equipment. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, the court will direct plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and recommend that his motion for injunctive relief be denied. On May 26, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) However, plaintiff has not filed an in forma pauperis application or paid the filing fee. Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Plaintiff states that he has been transported from the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and is currently in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff. (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Plaintiff moves the court for an order from this court to return him to Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), to “waive 30 day on court dates, and have [him] transferred to Lancaster State Prison to be transported to and fro [sic] to Lancaster Court for all future court dates.” (Id. at 2.) He argues an order is necessary because he cannot litigate the instant case because he does not have his legal property. I. Legal Standards Relative to Injunctive Relief A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after Winter). The principle purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial. //// In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction 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 the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Further, an injunction against individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . . . resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party . . . .”).1 Further, preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate until the court finds that the plaintiff’s complaint presents cognizable claims. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; [however] it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). II. Analysis Plaintiff is not entitled to the requested injunctive relief at this time. It is well settled that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in any particular prison, to any particular security classification, or to any particular housing assignment. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (18983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976); Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976). Additionally, plaintiff’s request for an order returning him to CDCR custody should be denied because it is unrelated to plaintiff’s underlying claim that defendants improperly confiscated his durable medical equipment. See Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding there must be a “sufficient nexus between the request in a motion for injunctive relief and the underlying claim itself.”).
1 However, the fact that injunctive relief is sought from one not a party to litigation does not automatically preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 16519(a) permits the court to issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief be denied. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, either the $350.00 filing fee plus the $52.00 administrative fee or a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided with this order; plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order or seek an extension of time to do so will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner for use in a civil rights action. 3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign this action to a United States District Judge. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 13) be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) days after being served 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. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: October 24, 2023
%6 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DB:12 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/turn0954.3a.new