(PC) Rouser v. Covello et al, No. 2:2022cv01749 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/17/23 ADOPTING in full 11 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 10 plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ROUSER, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:22-cv-01749-DAD-DMC (PC) Plaintiff, v. PATRICK COVELLO, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11) 17 18 Plaintiff William Rouser is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 3, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order 22 directing prison officials to allow him to attend educational programming. (Doc. No. 10.) On 23 January 9, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied because: (i) plaintiff 25 did not seek injunctive relief against individuals who are named as defendants in this action; (ii) 26 the lack of educational programming was not likely to lead to plaintiff suffering irreparable harm; 27 and (iii) plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits of his claim because there is no 28 constitutional right to educational programming. (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) The pending findings and 1 1 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 2 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) On January 19, 2023, plaintiff filed 3 objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.) In his objections, plaintiff contends that the has a constitutional right and “liberty interest” 4 5 in obtaining the educational programming he seeks, and that the denial of such programming is 6 cruel and unusual punishment. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff also contends that he requires the 7 educational programming to become rehabilitated and to follow the parole board’s advisement. 8 (Id. at 1.) However, it is well established that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to an 9 education or certain rehabilitation programs. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981) 10 (finding that the deprivation of rehabilitation and educational programs does not violate the 11 Eighth Amendment); Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 1989) (rejecting the 12 argument that a prisoner had property interest in a work release program because “there is no 13 constitutional right to rehabilitation”); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1092 (9th Cir. 14 1986) (“A liberty interest does not arise even when administrative segregation imposes ‘severe 15 hardships,’ such as ‘denial of access to vocational, educational, recreational, and rehabilitative 16 programs.’”), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); 17 Baumann v. Arizona Dep’t of Corr., 754 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1985) (“General limitation of 18 jobs and educational opportunities [in prison] is not considered punishment.”). 19 In addition, to the extent plaintiff contends that he has been retaliated against, that claim 20 appears unrelated to his requested injunctive relief regarding his access to certain education 21 programming and, in any event, plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed 22 on the merits of any such retaliation claim. See Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905–06 (9th Cir. 23 2014) (“We have repeatedly held that mere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is 24 not sufficient.”); Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th 25 Cir. 2015) (“We hold that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion 26 for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.”). Plaintiff’s remaining 27 objections fail to address the substance of the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions. Thus, 28 ///// 2 1 plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 2 recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 5 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. 8 adopted in full; and 9 2. 10 11 The findings and recommendations issued on January 9, 2023 (Doc. No. 11) are Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 10) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 17, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.