(PC) Calderon v. Covello ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, No. 2:23-cv-2049 WBS KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 P. COVELLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed 19 December 1, 2023. (ECF No. 20.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 20 relief should be denied. 21 Legal Standard for Injunctive Relief 22 A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a 23 clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 24 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A court may grant such relief only upon a petitioner’s showing of (1) 25 likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of 26 preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities weighs in petitioner’s favor, and (4) an injunction is 27 in the public interest. Id. at 20. 28 //// 1 The injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See 2 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). In other 3 words, “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief 4 and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” Id. at 636 (adopting Devose v. 5 Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). Absent a nexus between the injury claimed in the 6 motion and the underlying complaint, the court lacks the authority to grant plaintiff injunctive 7 relief. Id. A preliminary injunction only is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as 8 that to be finally granted. Id. (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 9 (1945)). 10 Discussion 11 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint as to plaintiff’s excessive force and 12 inadequate medical care claims against defendant Campos. (See ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff alleges 13 that on June 7, 2023, defendant Campos exploded a grenade/bomb under plaintiff’s cell door after 14 faking an altercation between inmates. (ECF No. 10 at 5-6.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant 15 Campos opened plaintiff’s cell door twenty minutes after the grenade/bomb exploded and failed 16 to offer plaintiff medical care for the injuries caused by exposure to the grenade/bomb. (Id. at 5.) 17 On November 9, 2023, the undersigned ordered service of defendant Campos. (ECF No. 18 17.) On December 19, 2023, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 19 (“CDCR”) filed a motion for a fourteen days extension of time to file a notice of intent to waive 20 service. (ECF No. 21.) On January 2, 2024, CDCR filed a notice of intent to waive service on 21 behalf of defendant Campos. (ECF No. 23.) 22 In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff alleges that after the court ordered 23 service of defendant Campos, plaintiff began experiencing “retaliatory, discriminatory and 24 punitive actions…” (ECF No. 20 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that he was placed on a C-status hold for 25 15 days if he did not provide confidential information about illegal activity between inmates and 26 staff. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he was issued a fabricated disciplinary action. (Id.) Plaintiff 27 requests a parole date or that he be transferred to Mexico. (Id.) Plaintiff also requests single 28 status and adequate medical care to prevent irreparable harm and more excessive confinement and 1 punishment. (Id.) 2 The undersigned finds that plaintiff’s claims of retaliation for filing the instant action are 3 vague and conclusory. In the pending motion, plaintiff pleads no specific facts supporting his 4 claim that his placement on C-status and the issuance of the fabricated disciplinary action were 5 made in retaliation for filing the instant action. Plaintiff does not allege, for example, that 6 defendant Campos was involved in any of the alleged retaliation. Plaintiff also provides no facts 7 supporting his claim that the disciplinary was fabricated. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for 8 injunctive relief on these grounds should be denied. See Titaness Light Shop, LLC v. Sunlight 9 Supply, Inc., 585 Fed. Appx. 390, 391 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To establish a likelihood of irreparable 10 harm, conclusory or speculative allegations are not enough.”).1 11 In a motion for injunctive relief filed November 3, 2023, plaintiff also requested parole or 12 transfer to Mexico. (ECF No. 14 at 4.) The court denied this request on the grounds that a 13 request for parole or transfer to Mexico challenged the validity of plaintiff’s conviction or 14 confinement. (ECF Nos. 15 at 9, 22.) The exclusive method for challenging the validity of a 15 conviction or confinement is by way of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Wilkinson v. 16 Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). (ECF Nos. 15 at 9, 22.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s pending request 17 for parole or transfer to Mexico should be denied on these same grounds. 18 Finally, in the pending motion, plaintiff requests single cell status and adequate medical 19 care. Plaintiff does not explain why he requires single cell status or why his medical care is 20 inadequate. Plaintiff also does not explain how these requests are related to the claims on which 21 this action proceeds. Accordingly, these requests for injunctive relief should be denied because 22 they are vague and conclusory. Titaness Light Shop, LLC, supra. 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 1 Based on the timing of the filing of the notice of intent to waive service, it is unclear whether 27 defendant Campos had notice of plaintiff’s amended complaint at the time plaintiff filed the pending motion. If defendant Campos had no notice of plaintiff’s amended complaint at the time 28 plaintiff filed the pending motion, plaintiff’s retaliation claims are without merit. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs motion for injunctive 2 | relief (ECF No. 20) be denied. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 8 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 9 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 || Dated: January 8, 2024 Aectl Aharon 12 KENDALL J.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 | Cald2049.56 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28