(HC) Gaitan v. Dalesandro ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALDEMAR GAITAN, JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-00926-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13 [Doc. 14] 14 v. [FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 15 16 SAMUEL DALESANDRO, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 20 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After conducting a preliminary review of the 21 petition, on August 8, 2023, the Court found it should refrain from interfering in ongoing state 22 court proceedings and recommended the petition be dismissed. On August 16, 2023, Petitioner 23 filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The Findings and Recommendations are 24 now awaiting decision by the District Judge. 25 On August 9, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. 14.) 26 Petitioner reasserts his claims in the habeas petition and further requests transfer to another 27 facility. 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Motion for Injunctive Relief 3 Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a temporary 4 restraining order. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the 5 balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the Court to intervene 6 to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 7 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Petitioner’s first argument for injunctive relief is 8 merely a restatement of his original claims for relief. The Court has already addressed those 9 arguments in its Findings and Recommendations which are currently pending review by a district 10 judge. There is simply no cause for injunctive relief since Petitioner’s arguments will be 11 considered by a district judge in due course. 12 With respect to Petitioner’s claims concerning transfer to another facility, the Court lacks 13 jurisdiction, within the framework of a habeas corpus proceeding, to grant the relief Petitioner 14 requests. A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. As a threshold and preliminary matter, 15 the Court must have before it for consideration a “case” or “controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 16 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). Absent such a case or controversy, the Court has no power to hear the 17 matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). 18 A habeas corpus action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the fact or 19 duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Tucker v. Carlson, 20 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979); 21 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a 22 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to seek 23 monetary or injunctive relief based on a challenge to the conditions of that confinement. See 24 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 25 (1973); Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Tucker, 925 F.2d at 332. 26 The Court’s habeas jurisdiction is limited to Petitioner’s challenge to the ongoing state 27 court trial. The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief with respect to conditions of 28 confinement (i.e., housing and unequal treatment). Such claims are more properly addressed in a 1 civil rights action. 2 RECOMMENDATION 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion for 4 injunctive relief be DENIED. 5 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 6 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 7 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 8 Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 9 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 10 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 11 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 13 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: September 4, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28