The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-03657-FJS (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO
13 v. ACTION
14 BROOMFIELD, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
15 Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 9)
16
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
18 Plaintiff Jose Antonio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has not yet
20 screened the complaint.
21 I. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
22 On August 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 9.) In
23 the motion, Plaintiff requests an order of protection directing the California Department of
24 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Departmental Review Board (“Board”) to place him and keep
25 him in the restricted housing unit until this case is heard. Plaintiff alleges that he is in danger of
26 being assaulted by inmates because the Board, the same people allegedly involved in this suit,
27 refused to place Plaintiff in the restricted general population or a protected housing unit. Plaintiff
28 further alleges that he will instead be placed in a prison “where there are assuredly people that
1 will assault [him] once they find out [he is] an informant.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges he will
2 suffer irreparable harm if transferred to any prison that is not Corcoran State Prison’s restricted
3 general population or protective housing unit, and staff know this. (Id.)
4 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
5 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a
6 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
7 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
8 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction
9 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation
10 omitted).
11 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
12 preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
13 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983);
14 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.
15 464, 471 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power
16 to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C.
17 § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the court find the “relief
18 [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the
19 Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
20 right.”
21 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the court jurisdiction over prison
22 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v.
23 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties
24 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555
25 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
26 II. DISCUSSION
27 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The
28 court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental
1 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s
2 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to
3 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
4 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
5 As noted above, the court has not yet screened the complaint. As such, this action does not
6 yet proceed on any cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant
7 has yet made an appearance. Thus, the court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over any
8 named defendants or other individuals who might be involved in determining Plaintiff’s
9 classification or housing assignment.
10 Finally, even assuming the court had jurisdiction to enter such an order, prison inmates do
11 not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility (or to be
12 transferred from one facility to another). Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 (1976); see
13 also Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244–45 (1983).
14 III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
15 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a district
16 judge to this action.
17 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
18 injunction, (ECF No. 9), be DENIED.
19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge
20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within fourteen
21 (14) days after being served with a copy of these findings and recommendations, a party may file
22 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
23 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages.
24 Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be considered. Exhibits shall not be filed
25 with objections, but they may be referenced by the document and page number. No new exhibits
26 may be filed with objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
27 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
28 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to
1 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
2 | Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment.
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Nyy 2 7
5 Dated: _ August 21, 2026 AMLA
UNITED STATESMAGISTRA TE JUDGE
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28