(HC)McCoy v. Warden at USP Atwater ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGGIE L. MCCOY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00121-NODJ-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13 [Doc. 10] 14 v. [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 15 16 WARDEN, USP ATWATER, 17 Respondent. 18 19 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 20 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After conducting a preliminary review of the 21 petition, on January 30, 2024, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s 22 claims and issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition. On February 16, 2024, 23 Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations which are awaiting decision by 24 a district judge. 25 On February 21, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. 10.) 26 Petitioner reasserts his claim that the judgment is void because the Return to the Judgment and 27 Commitment Order was signed by the Warden and an unknown officer rather than by a U.S. 28 marshal or deputy marshal. He also raises claims concerning the conditions of his confinement. 1 He contends that prison authorities are denying his transfer to a lesser custody level facility by 2 repeatedly singling him out for infractions. 3 DISCUSSION 4 I. Motion for Injunctive Relief 5 Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a temporary 6 restraining order. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the 7 balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the Court to intervene 8 to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 9 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Petitioner’s first argument for injunctive relief is 10 merely a restatement of his original claims for relief. The Court has already addressed those 11 arguments in its Findings and Recommendations which are currently pending review by a district 12 judge. There is no cause for injunctive relief since Petitioner’s arguments will be considered by a 13 district judge in due course. 14 With respect to Petitioner’s claims concerning transfer to a lesser facility and the actions 15 of prison officials in singling him out for discipline, the Court lacks jurisdiction within the 16 framework of a habeas corpus proceeding, to grant the relief Petitioner requests. A federal court 17 is a court of limited jurisdiction. As a threshold and preliminary matter, the Court must have 18 before it for consideration a “case” or “controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). 19 Absent such a case or controversy, the Court has no power to hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 20 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). 21 A habeas corpus action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the fact or 22 duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Tucker v. Carlson, 23 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979); 24 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a 25 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the defendants are state actors, or an 26 action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), where 27 the defendants are federal actors, is the proper method for a prisoner to seek monetary or 28 injunctive relief based on a challenge to the conditions of that confinement. See McCarthy v. 1 Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973); Badea, 2 931 F.2d at 574; Tucker, 925 F.2d at 332. 3 The Court’s habeas jurisdiction was invoked and the “case” or “controversy” over which 4 this Court now has habeas jurisdiction is limited to challenges to the underlying conviction. The 5 Court lacks jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement (i.e., 6 housing and unequal treatment). Such claims are more properly addressed in a civil rights action 7 pursuant to Bivens. 8 RECOMMENDATION 9 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion for 10 injunctive relief be DENIED. 11 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 12 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 13 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 14 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 15 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 16 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 18 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 19 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: February 23, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28