Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-26/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO HOLD CIVIL COMPLAINT IN 

ABEYANCE

(ECF No. 84)

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to hold the civil complaint in abeyance, 

filed October 18, 2024. Plaintiff submits that his “life is in immediate danger, and any movement 

without an escort shall result in my being harmed by members of the inmate class.” (ECF No. 84 

at 1.) Plaintiff further contends that Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) refuses to provide an escort 

“per policy” on October 21, 2024, to attend his deposition. (Id.) 

While the court takes seriously Plaintiff’s safety concerns, Plaintiff is not entitled to 

dictate his housing assignments. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum 

v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976); Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) (It is well 

settled that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in any particular prison, to any 

particular security classification, or to any particular housing assignment.). Although Plaintiff 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 85 Filed 10/21/24 Page 1 of 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

2

may be subject to a transfer and housed in a security housing unit, there is simply no showing that 

his safety is at jeopardy or that prison officials will not ensure his safety in order to attend his 

deposition. Indeed, it is improper for the court to second guess the decisions of prison officials 

regarding the day-to-day operation of prisons. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 322 (1986) 

(quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (Prison officials are entitled to “ ‘wideranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment 

are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.’ ”). 

Further, the documentation attached to Plaintiff’s motion demonstrates that prison officials at 

KVSP are aware of Plaintiff’s safety concerns and is taking appropriate measures to ensure 

Plaintiff’s safety. (ECF No. 84 at 3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for abeyance is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 85 Filed 10/21/24 Page 2 of 2