(PC) Gosztyla v. Ly

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD JOSEPH GOSZTYLA, No. 2:21-cv-1717 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER B. LY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three defendants who are all employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Eighth Amendment and all concern inadequate dental care. Plaintiff seeks damages.

21 Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the court issue an order preventing his transfer from Mule Creek State Prison.1 Plaintiff has not been ordered transferred yet but feels such an order is imminent. Plaintiff claims that a transfer will result in a violation of his Constitutional rights.

1 Plaintiff titles his motion “Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.” However, the request is neither as this case is not proceeding on any claim for injunctive relief. Requests such as plaintiff’s are generally considered under the “All Writs Act,” 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which permits the court to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of . . . jurisdiction.” ] The court generally does not have the authority to order CDCR to house a particular || inmate at any particular prison, Meachucm v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976), and plaintiffs || assertions that his Constitutional rights will be violated if he is transferred are vague and || conclusory. There are no facts presented adequately suggesting a violation of applicable rights || will occur if plaintiff is transferred.

6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion that the || court enter an order prohibiting plaintiff from being transferred away from Mule Creek State | Prison (ECF No. 46) is denied.

9 | Dated: September 27, 2023 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14], 15 gosz1717.tm