Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00823/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00823-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

RICHARD VILLAPANDO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CDCR, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14cv00823 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Document 23)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Richard Villapando (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prison inmate proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff 

filed this action on May 30, 2014. He filed a First Amended Complaint on August 13, 2014. 

The action is proceeding against Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of CDCR, for violation of the First 

Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

1

On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a temporary restraining order 

and preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendant from enforcing Notice 

of Change to Regulations 13-01 (“NCR 13-01”), which makes certain religious items nonallowable. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Defendant from threats and confiscation and/or 

destruction of Plaintiff’s religious items.

 

1

 Service documents were forwarded to the United States Marshal for service on October 2, 2014. 

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 25 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 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

A. LEGAL STANDARD

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (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) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary injunctive relief. 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). To do 

so, he “must show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and 

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be 

fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable 

judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation 

omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

B. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Here, as he has in past motions for injunctive relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court 

prohibit the enforcement of NCR 13-01, prohibit threats of confiscation or destruction of the 

religious items at issue, and/or “maintain the previously approved policies and procedures for 

Plaintiff to order and receive religious property and artifacts.” ECF No. 23, at 2.

Plaintiff is a Native American inmate and participates in the Native American Spiritual 

Circle (“NASC”). NCR 13-01 changed allowable religious property, and omitted several 

previously approved items that Plaintiff believes are essential to his Native American religious 

practices. The “wear-out” period for non-allowable items ended on June 9, 2014.

Plaintiff contends that he has received threats from staff regarding the confiscation and 

destruction of his spiritual items, and he has hidden the religious items that are no longer allowed

with other inmates. He explains that on July 13, 2014, he and his “pod-mate,” also a fellow 

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 25 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 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

litigant, returned to their living quarters and found their property, especially their spiritual 

property, dumped and strewn about. Several items that are allowed were severely damaged. 

Other inmates informed Plaintiff that two officers, one who was identified as Officer Rodriguez, 

entered the pod and ordered everyone to leave. No other inmates had their property searched. 

When Plaintiff attempted to gather information on the search, he was told to “let it go,” 

and that he was warned that they would be “coming after the Indians.” Plaintiff was also told 

that “if you two hadn’t gone to the courts, maybe” their items would not have been destroyed. 

ECF No. 23, at 9. 

Since the July search, Plaintiff and his pod-mate have been subjected to searches of their 

personal and religious property about every two weeks. Sometimes the officers have the new 

matrix in their hands while they search to check whether the found items are allowable. Plaintiff 

contends that the searches are targeting him and his pod-mate because of their membership in the 

NASC and as litigants against Defendant Beard. He states that he has been advised that he and 

his pod-mate “are being specifically targeted due to their participation in the present litigation.” 

ECF No. 23, at 16.

C. ANALYSIS

This action involves the constitutionality of NCR 13-01. However, the facts underlying 

this request for injunctive relief are only tangentially related to NCR 13-01. Instead, Plaintiff is 

seeking protection from retaliatory actions taken by various staff members for his involvement in 

this litigation. Plaintiff specifically states that he was told he was targeted because of this 

litigation. In other words, Plaintiff seeks relief from retaliation, not the enforcement of NCR 13-

01. Under Plaintiff’s facts, enjoining Defendant Beard from enforcing NCR 13-01 will not stop 

the officers’ retaliatory searches.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, there is no direct connection between Defendant 

Beard’s enforcement of NCR 13-01 and the officers’ retaliatory searches. While the officers 

may be referencing NCR 13-01, or checking property to see if it is allowable, the officers were 

motivated by Plaintiff’s litigation. Conduct must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the 

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 25 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 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

defendant, and in this instance, Plaintiff cannot meet this requirement. Summers, 555 U.S. at 

493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

That the officers are retaliating against Plaintiff is further supported by the officers’ 

alleged destruction of allowable property.

Moreover, the Court notes that “[w]here the regulations of a state prison are involved, 

‘federal courts have ... additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison 

authorities.’” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Of course, the Court would enjoin a regulation if the regulation was found to violate an inmate’s 

constitutional rights. However, the Court will not grant preliminary injunctive relief absent a 

clear showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

RECOMMENDATION

For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED.

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 (30) days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 25 Filed 11/14/14 Page 4 of 4