Kendall v. Brazil

Kendall v. Brazil · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · February 28, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-3801 CSK P

Summary

The court recommends denying Adam Kendall’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in his civil rights action against prison officials. The court concludes that the requested relief concerning transfer, housing at Mule Creek State Prison, and custody classification lacks a sufficient nexus to the claims pleaded in the complaint, and that unrelated conditions-of-confinement allegations at California State Prison, Corcoran cannot be considered in this action. The court also directs assignment of a district judge and advises the parties regarding objections to the findings and recommendations.

Holdings

  1. The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be denied because the requested relief was not based on the claims pleaded in the complaint.
  2. Plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction restoring a level-three override or requiring housing at a particular prison because prisoners generally have no constitutional right to a particular classification status, custody level, or prison placement.
  3. Claims concerning alleged excessive force, sleep deprivation, and denial of legal materials at California State Prison, Corcoran could not be considered as part of the motion because they arose from different events and involved different personnel from the claims concerning Mule Creek State Prison.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction preventing his transfer back to Mule Creek State Prison and requiring placement at another facility.
  2. Whether the court had authority to grant injunctive relief concerning incidents and claims arising at California State Prison, Corcoran, that were not pleaded in the complaint.
  3. Whether plaintiff had a constitutional right to a particular prison classification, custody level, or prison placement.
  4. Whether allegations concerning unrelated conditions of confinement at California State Prison, Corcoran, could be joined with the claims concerning events at Mule Creek State Prison.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (16)

  • Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988)(followed)
  • Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001)(followed)
  • Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)(followed)
  • Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)(followed)
  • Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633, 636 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020)(followed)
  • Villery v. California Dep't of Corr., 2016 WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016)(followed)
  • Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…