(PC) Stokes v. Cheek et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANTWONE STOKES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHEEK, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00691-FRS (BAM) (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR INVESTIGATION RE: PRISON
TREATMENT/CONDITIONS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 48)
I. Procedural Background
Plaintiff Antwone Stokes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against
Defendants Cheek, Orcullo, and Alvarez (“Defendants”) for failure to protect and denial of
medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 32.)
On February 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court, to be filed in all of their1 current
lawsuits in the Eastern District of California.2 (ECF No. 48.) The letter was docketed as a
“Request for Investigation re Prison treatment/conditions.” In the request, Plaintiff alleges that
1 Defendants stated that Plaintiff indicated a preference for they/them pronouns during their November 24, 2025
deposition. (ECF No. 46, p. 1, n.1.) Plaintiff should inform the Court if this is incorrect, and state any preferred
pronouns to be used in future proceedings in this action.
2 A second copy was filed as a “Notice and Notice of Change of Address.” (ECF No. 49.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
unspecified persons are threatening them and their sons while on the phone and that they are
being tortured by officers and medical staff. Plaintiff alleges that their life is in immediate danger
and that they have asked for help for 8 years from the FBI and the Court. Plaintiff also alleges
that “6 cowards attacked me with knives officers let them on the yard with” and that the Central
District and CDCR are stealing from them. (Id.) Plaintiff includes a variety of other allegations
that are difficult for the Court to decipher.
The Court construes the request as a motion for preliminary injunction. Although
Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to file a response, the Court finds a response
unnecessary. Plaintiff’s motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
II. Discussion
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a
preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation
omitted).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983);
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.
464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no
power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find
the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation
of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the
Federal right.”
///

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison
officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v.
United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties
in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555
U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
As Plaintiff was previously informed in response to his December 29, 2025 notice to the
Court, (ECF Nos. 43, 47), Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the Court to grant any
injunctive relief. Although Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened and found to state cognizable
claims, this does not mean that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Further,
Plaintiff’s vague and unsupported allegations regarding their past and current treatment in prison
do not create a sufficient connection to the claims at issue in this action. Pacific Radiation
Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]here must be
a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct
asserted in the underlying complaint.”)
To the extent Plaintiff believes they may be in danger, or that they have suffered or will
suffer further violations of their constitutional rights, they have other avenues of relief available
to them, including filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. E.g., People v.
Brewer, 235 Cal. App. 4th 122, 138, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104, 114 (2015) (a California trial court
may grant habeas corpus petitioner’s prospective relief to redress recurring, persistent
deprivations of prisoners’ rights at correctional facilities). The issue is not that Plaintiff’s
allegations are not serious or that they are not entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum. The
issue is that this action cannot be used by Plaintiff obtain the relief sought. The seriousness of
Plaintiff’s allegations concerning feared past or future harm cannot and do not overcome what is a
jurisdictional bar. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103–04 (1998)
(“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s
case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing its existence.”)
///

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Finally, Plaintiff’s motion fails to specify what relief is sought. Pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, any relief granted must be “narrowly drawn, extend[] no further than
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and [be] the least intrusive means necessary
to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff’s filing does
not provide any information as to the scope or type of relief Plaintiff seeks through this motion,
and the Court cannot simply grant a request for unspecified and unlimited injunctive relief.
III. Order
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for investigation re: prison treatment/conditions,
construed as a motion for preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 48), is HEREBY DENIED, without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE