(PC)Hagan v. Recarey et al

1
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEVIN HAGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RECAREY, et al.,
Defendants.
1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A TRANSFER DUE TO
RETALIATION, MOTION FOR HELP,
MOTION FOR HELP, AND MOTION FOR
RETALIATION CELL EXTRACTION BE
DENIED
(ECF Nos. 114, 115, 117, 118)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS
Plaintiff Kevin Hagan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently proceeding on his claims for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs and medical negligence related to his chronic back pain.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for transfer due to retaliation, motion for help,
motion for help, and motion for retaliation cell extraction. (ECF Nos 114, 115, 117, and 118).
In his motion for transfer, Plaintiff seeks a transfer from the prison where he is currently
incarcerated to another prison because his current prison is “corrupt”. (ECF No. 114 at 5). In
both of his motions for help, Plaintiff seeks Court intervention because he has been in
administrative segregation for 49 days. (ECF No. 115 at 1; and ECF No. 117 at 2). Finally, in
Plaintiff’s motion for retaliation cell extraction, Plaintiff again seeks transfer to another prison.
(ECF No. 118 at 1-2).

2
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
As explained below, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motions be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
a. Plaintiff’s Claims in the Case
On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative
complaint. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants J.
Sandhu, H. Longia, M. Son, J. Mevi, and H. Eskander, who are all physicians at Valley State
Prison (“VSP”), failed to provide Plaintiff with medical treatment that is needed to address his
chronic back pain, including a surgery that was recommended by an outside specialist,
adequate pain management, medical tests, and referrals. (See ECF No. 29).
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff is proceeding on his claims under the Eighth
Amendment for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Bick,
Longia, Son, Mevi, and Eskander, as well as state law claims for medical negligence against
Defendants Son, Mevi, and Longia. (Id. at 20-23). Plaintiff seeks a Court order that Plaintiff
receive the recommended back surgery and adequate pain management. (See ECF No. 29-2).
II. Plaintiff’s Motions
Before the Court are several motions in which Plaintiff asks the Court to order prison
officials, who are not defendants in this case, to take various actions unrelated to his pending
claims in this case.
a. Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Due to Retaliation
Plaintiff filed his motion to transfer due to retaliation on January 12, 2026. (ECF No.
114). In the motion, Plaintiff states he was transferred from SATF in Corcoran, California to
RJD Prison in San Diego, CA on February 20, 2025. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff claims upon arrival, he
was sent to a yard that he knew he was not supposed to be at, because he was supposed to be on
“level 2.” Plaintiff alleges the next morning he was sent to administrative segregation (“Ad-
Seg,” or “the hole”) for six days “because they made a mistake.” (Id.)
Plaintiff states that on May 15, 2025, he was getting his PM medication when he was
assaulted. Plaintiff claims the assault went on longer than it should have because no CDCR
officer was at his post. (Id. at 2).

3
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
Plaintiff states that on August 7, 2025, he demanded to speak to a Sergeant because
“I’ve went without my TV since arriving at R.J.D and I refused to lock up.” (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges he was assaulted by seven officers, taken to medical where a doctor named Sahla
refused to examine and treat Plaintiff, but indicated otherwise in his report. Plaintiff states a
Sergeant Mercado minimized the fact that Plaintiff was raped in 2015. (Id.).
Plaintiff alleges that on September 21, 2025, he was assaulted again and when the
assault was broken up, Plaintiff was arrested behind his back but should have been cuffed at his
waist due to medical problems. (Id. at 2-3).
Plaintiff alleges that on December 7, 2025, he was assaulted from behind by another
inmate on his way back from “chow hall.” (Id. at 3). On December 11, 2025, Plaintiff was sent
to AD-Seg because he refused to lock up, stating the inmate who assaulted him on December 7
was in his building and Plaintiff wanted this inmate moved out of the building. (Id.). Plaintiff
states he was in AD-Seg from December 11, 2025, until January 7, 2026. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff
alleges he was denied personal property for 11 days. Further, Plaintiff claims he has a legal
lawsuit he is supposed to be working on and as such, should not have been put in AD-Seg.
Plaintiff claims he was put in AD-Seg to “impede me from being successfull [sic] on my
lawsuit…”(Id.).
Plaintiff’s motion asks for the Court’s assistance in transferring him from “this corrupt
prison into a prisons [sic] medical unit. Preferably OHU at Chino State Prison, it’s the closest
prison to San Diego, where all my friends, loved ones, the family I got left lives.” (Id. at 5).
b. Plaintiff’s Motion for Help filed on January 23, 2026
Plaintiff’s first motion for help was filed on January 23, 2026, and requests the Court’s
help. (ECF No. 115). Plaintiff alleges he has been held in AD-Seg for 40 days and has filed
many 602s that have gone unanswered or been redirected. (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff alleges this is
being done to prevent him from working on this action. (Id. at 2).
c. Plaintiff’s Motion for Help filed on February 2, 2026
Plaintiff’s second motion for help was filed on February 2, 2026. (ECF No. 117). In this
motion, Plaintiff requests the Court’s help because he is being denied access to his family,

4
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
denied adequate medical, and was brutally extracted from his cell resulting in a broken titanium
rod in his lower back. (Id. at 1-2). Further, Plaintiff has been in AD-Seg for 49 days. Plaintiff
alleges he has been assaulted twice on video camera. (Id. at 2).
d. Plaintiff’s Motion for Retaliation Cell Extraction
Plaintif’s motion for retaliation cell extraction was filed on February 2, 2026, and
requests the Court’s assistance in facilitating a transfer from R.J.D. prison because of
retaliation. (ECF No. 118). He claims he was extracted from his cell on January 23, 2026, and
sustained “many injury from that incident.” Plaintiff states he was sent to the hospital on
January 24, 2026, and given an MRI, where it was discovered he had a broken titanium rod in
his lower back. (Id.).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties
and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of
persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “When
a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not
have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr.,
810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015).
“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.”
Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); see also Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d
832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that analysis for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction are “substantially identical”). “A preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.
The Ninth Circuit has held that “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed
in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. This
requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the

5
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
claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v.
Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). A sufficient nexus exists “where
the preliminary injunction would grant relief of the same character as that which may be
granted finally. Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the
relief requested.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted)
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 that 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.”
IV. ANALYSIS
The Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motions be denied because the relief they
seek is unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims in this case and is not directed at defendants in the case.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not established the requirements for obtaining injunctive relief.
Plaintiff’s claims pending in this case concern Plaintiff’s allegations of chronic back
pain and Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference and medical negligence in treating that
back pain. However, none of Plaintiff’s pending motions concern medical treatment for his
chronic back pain. Moreover, Plaintiff’s motions do not concern defendants in this case. Thus,
none of Plaintiff’s motions meet the standards for injunctive relief.1
As described above, a preliminary injunction must request that the Court grant relief of
the same character as that which may be granted finally. In this case, Plaintiff is not seeking,
and could not obtain, relief related to alleged issues identified in these motions. Nor are the
Defendants in this case responsible for the allegations put forth in these motions. Thus, there is
1 It is worth noting that Plaintiff has filed multiple other requests for injunctive relief that are related to
his pending claims. Most recently, on April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief
requesting a Court order that he receive a back surgery and increased pain medication. (ECF No. 76,
78). The District Judge denied that request on December 31, 2025 (ECF No. 111), based on Findings
and Recommendations that reviewed in detail the medical evidence related to Plaintiff’s current medical
condition. (ECF No. 106 (“Defendants have submitted evidence that CDCR’s decision to deny him
back surgery was supported by medical judgment, including the medical opinion that “’here was only a
60% chance that an eighth back surgery would improve Mr. Hagan’s current condition and pain, and a
40% chance of worsening it.’”)).

6
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
not a sufficient nexus between the claims in the case and Plaintiff’s motions.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
case or that he is entitled to extraordinary relief.
Further, while Plaintiff generally claims that he is being prevented from working on this
action because of his time spent in AD-Seg, he does not explain how he is being prevented
from litigating this case. On the contrary, Plaintiff has filed five separate documents in this
case in the past month, (ECF No. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118), which demonstrates that he is still
able to adequately access the courts.
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for transfer due to
retaliation, motions for help, and motion for retaliation cell extraction be denied. (ECF Nos.
114, 115, 117, and 118).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than
fifteen pages, including exhibits. Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within
fourteen days after service of the objections.
The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE