(PC)Poindexter v. Lynch et al, No. 2:2021cv00760 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/15/22 ORDERING the clerk of the court randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 12 be denied. Motion 12 assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF

(PC)Poindexter v. Lynch et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE POINDEXTER, 12 No. 2:21-cv-0760 AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 J. LYNCH, et al., 15 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary 21 restraining order. ECF No. 12. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend 22 that the motion be denied. 23 I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 24 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief was written while he was housed at California 25 Health Care Facility. See ECF No. 12 at 1-2. The motion states that plaintiff was badly beaten 26 by defendants while he was an inmate at California State Prison – Sacramento, and that he fears 27 that he will be killed, harmed or set up to be once he is returned there. Id. at 2. He seeks a court 28 order preventing that transfer. Id. Plaintiff requests transfer to Salinas Valley State Prison. Id. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. 2 To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate that: (1) he is likely to 3 succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; 4 (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter 5 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for 6 injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in 7 nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 8 DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. First, plaintiff fails to provide support for his claim 9 that he is in any sort of danger or harm that is imminent. He reports no specific statements made 10 or actions taken by defendants that indicate he will be subjected to violence if returned to CSP – 11 Sacramento. Plaintiff simply believes that he will be harmed. ECF No. 12. Injunctive relief 12 cannot be granted based on speculative harm. See Caribbean Marine Serv. Co., 844 F.2d at 674. 13 To the extent that plaintiff seeks transfer to Salinas Valley State Prison, this court has no 14 authority to determine where plaintiff should be housed, and it is well-settled that a prisoner has 15 no constitutional right to be housed in a particular prison. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 16 530 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976). 17 Finally, plaintiff recently filed a notice of change of address which indicates that he is 18 now housed at Kern Valley State Prison. ECF No. 13. Any alleged harm at the hands of 19 defendants who are located at California State Prison – Sacramento is not possible, and eliminates 20 any legal interest plaintiff may have had in a decision on the merits of his motion. See Jones v. 21 Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) (prisoner’s removal from problematic 22 environment eliminates legally cognizable interest in decision on merits). Even if plaintiff had 23 proffered facts showing a danger to him at CSP – Sacramento, that danger is not currently 24 imminent and therefore cannot support any court order. In other words, the motion for an order 25 preventing transfer to CSP – Sacramento is now moot. 26 For all these reasons, the instant motion for injunctive relief must be denied. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 28 United States District Judge to this action. 2 1 2 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (ECF No. 12) be DENIED. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 7 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 8 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 9 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 DATED: June 15, 2022 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.