(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)

Download PDF
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?