Brown v. Harris et al

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING Motion for Court Order Preventing Transfer 49 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/3/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CORNELL BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:12-cv-01472-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT
ORDER PREVENTING TRANSFER
(Doc. 49.)

vs.
C/O R. HARRIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

19

BACKGROUND
Cornell Brown (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on

21

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint filed on September 10, 2012, against defendant Harris for

22

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and defendant Nelson for failure to

23

protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)

24

On May 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order preventing his transfer to the

25

California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California. (Doc. 49.)

26

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

27

AA preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@

28

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation
1

1

omitted). AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to

2

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

3

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public

4

interest.@ Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear

5

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

6

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for

7

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary

8

matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

9

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for

10

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the

11

Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter

12

in question.

13

3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the

14

Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of

15

the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the

16

Federal right.@

Id.

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '

17

Plaintiff requests a court order preventing his transfer back to CCI, where prison

18

officials previously harassed and threatened him. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the

19

California State Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California.

20

Plaintiff motion must be denied because such relief would not remedy any of the claims

21

in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order preventing officials

22

from transferring him back to CCI, because the Court does not have such a case or controversy

23

before it in this action. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727

24

(9th Cir. 1985); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983);

25

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S.

26

464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action arises from an

27

incident of excessive force by defendants at CCI which allegedly occurred in April 2012.

28

Plaintiff now requests a court order preventing future action. Because a court order preventing
2

1

Plaintiff’s future transfer would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds,

2

the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.

3

Moreover, the court recognizes that prison administrators "should be accorded wide-

4

ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment

5

are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security."

6

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547

7

(1970).

8

transferring inmates from one prison to another.

9

III.

10
11

Accordingly, as a rule the court defers to the prison's policies and practices in

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court

order preventing his transfer to CCI is DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 3, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3