Sykes v. Galindo, et al.

Sykes · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · September 15, 2025 · No. 1:23-cv-01770-KES-EPG (PC)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and denied state prisoner Troy Sykes’s request for injunctive relief concerning an allegedly retaliatory prison transfer. The court held that the requested relief lacked a sufficient nexus to the retaliation claim pending in the action and that the request was inadequately substantiated.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was properly denied because he did not establish the requirements for extraordinary preliminary relief, including a likelihood of success on a claim connected to the challenged transfer.
  2. A district court lacks authority to grant injunctive relief absent a sufficient nexus between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.
  3. Prisoners generally have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in being held at or remaining at a particular prison facility, although a transfer may not be imposed in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief concerning his prison transfer.
  2. Whether the requested injunction had a sufficient nexus to the claims and conduct alleged in the underlying § 1983 complaint.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 24 (2008)(followed)
  • Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)(followed)
  • Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)(followed)
  • Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-12 (1982)(followed)
  • Price v. Breitenbach, No. 3:24-CV-00118-CSD, 2025 WL 1517909, at *2-*3 (D. Nev. May 28, 2025)(followed)
  • All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)(followed)
  • Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…