(PC) Salcido v. Ugweze 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
SIXTO SALCIDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
G. UGWEZE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01312-JLT-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT:
1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE
TRANSFERRED TO “ANOTHER
INSTITUTION OUT OF THIS
COUNTY” BE DENIED
(ECF No. 21)
2) PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO
BE TRANSFERRED TO “ANOTHER
MEDICAL FACILITY OR/AND
INSTITUTION” BE DENIED
(ECF No. 28)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS
Plaintiff Sixto Salcido is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 after Defendants refused to renew a
prescription for Gabapentin and Tramadol, which are used for pain management.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to be transferred to “another institution out of this
County” (ECF No. 21) and second motion to transfer to “another medical facility or/and
Case 1:25-cv-01312-JLT-EPG Document 34 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 7

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
institution” (ECF No. 28). In his motions for transfer, Plaintiff seeks to move from the
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) where he is currently incarcerated
to “Donovan State Prison [as] the closest Medical Facility to my family.” (ECF No. 28 at 1-2).
Plaintiff states that he wants to transfer because he has an “infection in his private areas” and
needs a catheter installation for urinary incontinence. (ECF No. 21 at 2). Plaintiff also seeks a
transfer because he believes he has “the right to be transferred to another Medical Facility
or/and Institution that wants to give what I need as a chronic sick person.” (ECF No. 28 at 1).
As explained below, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motions be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Plaintiff’s Claims in the Case1
On April 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which is the operative
complaint. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges that he was shot with a
gun nearly twenty years ago and required reconstructive surgery on his face and neck. (Id. at 3-
4). In 2004, he was prescribed Gabapentin for chronic pain and continued taking the medicine
until May 2025 when his prescription expired. (Id.).
Plaintiff asked Defendant Oberst, CSATF physician, to renew his prescription for
Gabapentin and Tramadol, and Dr. Oberst told him that he would submit the recommendation
for “his boss’ approval.” (Id.). However, Dr. Oberst’s request was not approved. (Id.).
Although Dr. Oberst did not name the person who directed him to refuse the renewal,
Plaintiff identifies Defendant G. Ugweze as the Chief Medical Executive at CSATF. (Id.).
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff is proceeding on his claims under the Eighth
Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Oberst and
Ugweze for refusing to renew his Gabapentin and Tramadol prescription. (ECF No. 15).
Plaintiff seeks a Court order that his Gabapentin prescription be renewed for the rest of his life
in prison along with Tramadol. (ECF No. 14 at 5).
1 For readability, minor alterations, like changing capitalization, have been made to some of Plaintiff’s
quotations throughout without indicating each change.
Case 1:25-cv-01312-JLT-EPG Document 34 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 7

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
II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO TRANSFER
Before the Court are two motions in which Plaintiff asks the Court to order prison
officials, who are not defendants in this case, to take action unrelated to the pending claims in
this case.
A. Motion to be Transferred to Another Institution Out of the County
Plaintiff filed his motion to be transferred to “another institution out of this County” on
July 7, 2026. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff states that he has requested a catheter installation for
urinary incontinence but has been denied. Plaintiff argues that “[d]ue to all the physical medical
problems and the serious infection that right now I have in my private areas,” he should be
transferred to another medical facility. (Id. at 2).
Plaintiff attaches certain documents to the motion because he is concerned the
documents will disappear or not be processed, including an Inmate Request for Interview form
written in Spanish, a healthcare grievance form requesting his prescription for Gabapentin be
renewed, several other healthcare grievances written in Spanish, 1996 surgery records for the
gunshot wound, and completion certificates for several programs while incarcerated. (Id. at 3-
40).
B. Second Motion to Transfer
On August 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second motion to transfer out of CSATF because he
has “the right to be transferred to another medical facility or/and institution that wants to give
what I need as a chronic sick person.” (ECF No. 28 at 1). He states generally that he has filed
various grievances for issues including CSATF’s refusal to 1) renew his Gabapentin
prescription, 2) place a catheter to prevent incontinence, 3) provide him with a copy of his
dental, psychological, and medical records, and 4) assign him to an institution closer to his
home. (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff also states that psychologists and psychiatrists are manipulating the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) system to falsify reports in
his records. (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff requests an order that he be moved to Donovan State Prison
since it is the closest medical facility to his family. (Id. at 2).
\\\
Case 1:25-cv-01312-JLT-EPG Document 34 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 7

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
In support of his motion, Plaintiff attaches a Reasonable Accommodation Panel
Response from 2023 regarding Plaintiff’s request for a different type of wheelchair. (Id. at 4).
He also attaches an incomplete and undated grievance / reasonable accommodation request
form regarding a transfer to a facility closer to Plaintiff’s home.2 (Id. at 5).
C. Defendants’ Opposition
In their opposition to Plaintiff’s first motion to transfer, Defendants argue that the Court
lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested transfer. (ECF No. 26 at 1). Defendants note that they
are physicians who do not have authority to transfer Plaintiff to another facility, and Plaintiff
did not name the CDCR as a defendant. (Id. at 1, 4). As such, Defendants argue that the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over CSATF staff who could provide Plaintiff with the possibility of
a transfer to another facility. (Id. at 1-2).
Defendants also argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because “this
lawsuit involves Defendants’ alleged failure to provide Plaintiff with his preferred pain relief
for an old gunshot wound—Gabapentin—on May 11, 2025, not CDCR’s responses to
grievances from 2024, a possible current groin infection, or a urinary tract catheter.” (Id. at 2).
In their brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s second motion to transfer, Defendants
construed the second motion as a reply to his first motion to transfer and state that Plaintiff’s
motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.
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).
\\\
2 Because the grievance / accommodation request form is incomplete, the Court cannot determine if the
form was actually submitted to the facility and if so, when it was submitted.
Case 1:25-cv-01312-JLT-EPG Document 34 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 7

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
“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
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 he has not met the
high burden for obtaining a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff requests a transfer to another prison because he has a groin infection, wants
CDCR to place a catheter for urinary incontinence, and believes he is entitled to be housed in a
facility closer to his home. (ECF No. 21 at 1-2; ECF No. 28 at 2). These claims do not concern
the renewal of his Gabapentin and Tramadol prescriptions for pain management or concern the
individual Defendants in this case. Thus, Plaintiff’s motions to transfer based on his acute
Case 1:25-cv-01312-JLT-EPG Document 34 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 7

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
medical condition or his desire to be closer to his family do not meet the standards for
preliminary injunctive relief.
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 transferring prison facilities. Nor are Defendants – a
healthcare executive and a doctor – responsible for the allegations surrounding Plaintiff’s
current groin infection, decision to place a catheter, or move Plaintiff closer to his family. Thus,
there is not a sufficient nexus between the claims in the case related to Gabapentin and
Plaintiff’s motions to transfer.
Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s mention of a Gabapentin grievance as an
argument for transfer (ECF No. 28 at 1), Plaintiff has not demonstrated, or even argued, that
providers at CSATF are incapable of renewing his Gabapentin prescription. To the contrary,
Plaintiff states that he has been housed at CSATF for over ten years and received Gabapentin
until May of 2025. While Plaintiff requests a transfer to Donovan State Prison, his reason is
unrelated to his Gabapentin prescription. Rather, it is closest medical facility to his family, and
CSATF has repeatedly denied a voluntary transfer. (ECF No. 28 at 1-2).
As such, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has met his high burden of proving that he
is entitled to a preliminary injunction.
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to be transferred to “another institution out of this County”
(ECF No. 21) be DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff’s second motion to transfer to “another medical facility or/and
institution” (ECF No. 28) be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may
file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
Case 1:25-cv-01312-JLT-EPG Document 34 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6 of 7

7
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
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if there are any, shall not
exceed fifteen (15) pages. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be
considered. Exhibits shall not be filed with objections, but they may be referenced by the
document and page number. No new exhibits may be filed with objections. The parties are
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the
“right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 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: October 15, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01312-JLT-EPG Document 34 Filed 10/15/26 Page 7 of 7