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)

Download PDF
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?