Paul David Carr v. Cueva, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses Paul David Carr’s motion for a protective order or preliminary injunction and motion for an extension of time. The magistrate judge grants the extension and recommends denying injunctive relief because the requested protection against retaliatory transfer lacks a sufficient nexus to the claims in the operative complaint. The document also explains the deadline for choosing whether to proceed on the screened Third Amended Complaint or file a limited Fourth Amended Complaint.

Holdings

1. The court lacks authority to grant preliminary injunctive relief by motion when the operative complaint seeks only monetary relief, as there is no sufficient nexus between the relief sought in the motion and the complaint.
2. The motion for injunctive relief based on fear of retaliatory transfer lacks a sufficient nexus with the cognizable claims in the complaint (deliberate indifference to nutrition, ADA/RA claims, retaliation/unlawful search against Silva) because the complaint does not allege claims of retaliatory transfer by any named defendant.
3. A prisoner has no substantive right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility or to be or not be transferred from one facility to another.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court has authority to grant preliminary injunctive relief when the operative complaint does not seek injunctive relief.
2. Whether there is a sufficient nexus between the claims in the motion for injunctive relief (retaliatory transfer) and the cognizable claims in the operative complaint.
3. Whether plaintiff has shown a likelihood of irreparable harm for preliminary injunctive relief.

Disposition

recommended_denial_of_injunction