(PC) Hill v. Newsome et al
Filing
39
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/19/21 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 38 be denied. Motion 38 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
Case 2:19-cv-01680-JAM-AC Document 39 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NATHAN HILL,
12
No. 2:19-cv-1680 JAM AC P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil
18
rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
19
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
Before this court is plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion requesting that he be
21
transferred out of the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
22
(“CDCR”) and into federal custody. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends
23
that the motion be denied.
24
I.
25
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION
Plaintiff’s present motion1 asks the court to “remov[e] him from Defendant CDCR [and]
26
27
28
1
This is plaintiff’s third request for a preliminary injunction, and it reflects the same theories for
relief as the two previous requests which were denied. Compare ECF No. 38, with ECF No. 1 at
5-7, 11; ECF No. 6.
1
Case 2:19-cv-01680-JAM-AC Document 39 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 3
1
all other Def[endant] custody [in order] to avoid death or serious injury.” ECF No. 38 at 1.
2
Plaintiff alleges that “Def[endant] CDCR is actively seeking to have [him] attacked by gang
3
members,” that he has “been injured / maimed, [and] set up / harassed at [four] prisons,” and that
4
he is “in jeopardy of being killed or seriously injured again”2 Id. at 1, 6. Accordingly, plaintiff
5
asks that he be “transfer[red] completely out of CDCR state custody into federal custody.” See
6
ECF No. 38 at 6. A transfer to another CDCR prison “won’t help,” plaintiff argues, because
7
“corrupt C/O[]s will call to those prisons [and] tell lies or truth to get . . . equally corrupt co-
8
worker to continue . . . their harassment.” Id.
9
II.
DISCUSSION
10
A.
11
To the extent that the motion requests plaintiff’s transfer into federal custody, it must be
Plaintiff Seeks Relief That is Unavailable
12
denied. The federal Bureau of Prisons houses those offenders committed to it upon conviction
13
and sentencing in a federal court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621. There is no indication that plaintiff has
14
any outstanding federal sentence that could support BOP custody. Even if he did, the
15
determination of priority of custody and service of sentence between state and federal sovereigns
16
is a matter of comity to be resolved by federal and state executive branches. It is not a judicial
17
function. See United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684-85 (9th Cir. 1980).
18
In any event, courts regularly defer to prison officials’ decisions on internal matters. See,
19
e.g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995) (“[F]ederal courts ought to afford appropriate
20
deference and flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment.”); Wolff v.
21
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974) (“We should not be too ready to exercise oversight and put
22
aside the judgment of prison administrators.”). Inmates have no constitutional right to any
23
particular prison placement. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Neal v. Shimoda,
24
131 F.3d 818, 828 (9th Cir. 1997).
25
////
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff states that he has “still not [been] treated for previous injuries inflicted.” ECF No. 38
at 6. However, plaintiff fails to provide any information whatsoever about these alleged previous
injuries. See generally ECF No. 38.
2
Case 2:19-cv-01680-JAM-AC Document 39 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 3
1
B.
2
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate that (1) he is likely to
Failure to Show Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
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). Here, although plaintiff repeats his
6
claims of imminent life-threatening danger, there continues to be a complete absence of evidence
7
to support the allegations. Plaintiff alleges that he was “permanently maimed and severely
8
injured” after the court denied his second preliminary injunction request in November 2019. ECF
9
No. 38 at 4. However, plaintiff does not provide any specific facts regarding the nature of this
10
alleged permanent injury or the circumstances under which it was sustained, and no medical
11
records or other documentary evidence is provided.
12
Because there has been a complete failure to establish the likelihood of irreparable harm,
13
the court need not address the other Winter factors. Plaintiff not met his burden, and the motion
14
for a preliminary injunction must be denied.
15
16
17
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction, ECF No. 38, be DENIED.
18
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
19
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
20
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
21
with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
22
and Recommendations. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
23
may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
24
Cir. 1991).
25
DATED: July 19, 2021
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?