Gould v. Renbart ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 STEVEN ERIC GOULD, Case No. 2:22-cv-01755-GMN-EJY 4 Petitioner, v. ORDER 5 WILLIAM RENBART, et al., 6 Respondents. 7 8 This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Remove Erroneous 9 Noticed Attorney (ECF No. 11) and Motion for Emergency Transfer of Petitioner (ECF No. 12). 10 I. Motion to Remove Erroneous Noticed Attorney 11 Petitioner requests that the Court remove Ely State Prison Law Library as appearing as 12 his noticed attorney on the docket sheet.1 The Court, however, appointed counsel to represent 13 Petitioner and his counsel has entered his notice of appearance. ECF Nos. 9, 20. Accordingly, 14 Petitioner’s motion is denied as moot. 15 II. Motion for Emergency Transfer of Petitioner 16 Petitioner represents that he is an undercover police officer with Las Vegas Metropolitan 17 Police Department and requests a transfer from Ely State Prison to “a safe location” because 18 Petitioner is in custody unlawfully. Petitioner also appears to assert notice of a racially 19 motivated hate crime and that the Ely State Prison medical supervisor is committing medical 20 malpractice. 21 Plaintiff requests that the Court transfer him from Ely State Prison based on his assertions 22 that he is an undercover police officer, that he is a victim of a racially motivated hate crime, and 23 medical malpractice. However, this is a federal habeas matter wherein Petitioner is challenging 24 his state court conviction. “A court's equitable power lies only over the merits of the case or 25 controversy before it. When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the 26 complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, 27 1 The Court notes that Ely State Prison did not represent Petitioner but was on the docket sheet 28 because it is an e-service prison wherein the law librarians print and distribute documents. 1 LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). Petitioner may pursue his claims by 2 filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Accordingly, the Court denies 3 Petitioner’s motion for transfer. 4 III. Conclusion 5 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s Motion to Remove Erroneous Noticed Attorney 6 (ECF No. 11) is denied as moot. 7 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Transfer of Petitioner (ECF 8 No. 12) is denied. 9 DATED: December 14, 2023 10 11 ______________________________ GLORIA M. NAVARRO 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 It appears that Petitioner has multiple closed and pending § 1983 prisoner civil rights cases. See Gould v. United States, Case No. 2:20-cv-1474-KJD-BNW; Gould v. Chapman, Case No. 2:21- 28 cv-2022-APG-NJK; Gould v. Zuniga, Case No. 2:22-cv-1060-GMN-BNW.