Wheeler v. Alison et al
Filing
104
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 102 Plaintiff's Request to Stay His Transfer be DENIED signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/22/2014. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
ERIC WHEELER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
ALISON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:12cv00861 LJO DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR STAY OF TRANSFER
(Document 102)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
16
17
Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
18
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action
20
on May 25, 2012.
21
The action is currently in discovery. The discovery cut-off is July 16, 2014.
22
On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document in which he requests that the Court issue an
23
order staying his pending transfer. The Court construes this as a motion for a preliminary
24
25
26
27
28
injunction.
A.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation
1
1
2
3
4
omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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.” Id. at 20
(citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
5
entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In cases brought by prisoners
6
7
8
9
10
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).
B.
DISCUSSION
11
In his motion, Plaintiff states that on May 15, 2014, while incarcerated at SATF, he was
12
placed for transfer to either Mule Creek State Prison or Salinas Valley State Prison within thirty
13
days. He contends that this transfer will severely hamper his ability to conduct discovery given
14
that the incident at issue occurred at SATF and most witnesses and documents are at SATF.
15
Plaintiff requests that the Court order a stay of transfer for forty-five days.
16
17
18
Difficulty or inconvenience in discovery is not type of injury, however, that a preliminary
injunction is meant to address. Rather, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show,
among other things, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary.
19
Moreover, it well settled that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in any
20
21
22
23
particular prison, to any security classification, or to any particular housing assignment. See
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976);
Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, (1976). Plaintiff, therefore, may not use a motion for
24
preliminary injunction to prevent a prison transfer.
25
C.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
26
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request to stay
27
his transfer be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
28
2
1
2
3
4
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s
5
objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that
6
7
8
9
party’s objections. The parties are 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, 1157
(9th Cir. 1991).
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
13
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
May 22, 2014
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?