(PC) Gray v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS EUGENE GRAY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00196-NONE-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TRANSFER INJUNCTION 14 KEN CLARK, et.al., ) BE DENIED ) 15 Defendants. ) [ECF No. 27] ) 16 ) ) 17 ) ) 18 Plaintiff Thomas Eugene Gray is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency transfer injunction, filed 21 August 10, 2020. (ECF No. 27.) 22 I. 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 26 status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 27 intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 28 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or 1 temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 2 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 3 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 4 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 5 “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 6 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. 7 Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A party 8 seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion 9 is unsupported by evidence. 10 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 11 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an 12 actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 13 Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If 14 the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in 15 question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 16 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 17 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive 18 means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 19 Plaintiff seeks an emergency order directing that he be transferred to a different institution. 20 Plaintiff has not established his entitlement to injunctive relief. It is well settled that prisoners have no 21 constitutional right to placement in any particular prison, to any particular security classification, or to 22 any particular housing assignment. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v. 23 Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976); Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976). “ ‘Prison 24 administrators ... should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies 25 and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline in the adoption 26 and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and 27 discipline and to maintain institutional security.’ ” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22 (1986) 28 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979)). wOoe 4:OU VV SPA MMU OO POO OP er TP Yt VMI 1 Plaintiff contends that he has been “blackballed” as retaliation for filing this action, and he ha 2 || been placed improperly in administrative segregation in order to “‘strip” him of his liberties. (ECF □□ 3 27 at 1-2.) Plaintiff's speculative safety concerns are not sufficient to show that he is entitled to 4 || injunctive relief. See Van Buren v. Willard, No. 1:13-cv-1273 DLB PC, 2014 WL 2524392 at *2 5 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2014) (denying injunctive relief to plaintiff with safety concerns regarding his 6 || placement on the yard with known enemies because his concern was speculative and did “not 7 || demonstrate he was facing real, immediate danger.”). Simply being placed in administrative 8 || segregation does not demonstrate that Plaintiff is facing immediate danger. Accordingly, the Court 9 || will recommend that Plaintiff's motion be denied. 10 Il. 11 RECOMMENDATION 12 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for an 13 emergency transfer to a different institution be denied. 14 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 16 || after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections 17 || with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 || Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time mz 19 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 20 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe _ 23 lI pated: _ August 11, 2020 OF 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28