Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02613/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02613-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVOOD KHADEMI,

Plaintiff,

v.

NIELSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-2613 MCE KJN P

ORDER

This civil rights action proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint raising Fourteenth 

Amendment claims against defendants Nielsen, Jones, Langes and Michoul. Plaintiff recently 

filed two motions, which this court denies without prejudice.

First, on December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, seeking an order 

compelling defendants to answer interrogatories. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff’s request is premature. 

Defendants have not yet filed an answer, and the court has not yet issued a discovery and 

scheduling order. Plaintiff is advised that he should refrain from sending discovery requests to 

defendants until such time as the court issues an order governing discovery. 

Second, on January 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Order to Show Cause 

for a Preliminary Injunction.” (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff claims he was denied due process 

following an incident that took place on July 25, 2017. 

////

Case 2:18-cv-02613-MCE-KJN Document 72 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 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

2

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

v. Natural Resources Defense 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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 

Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). 

An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citation omitted).

In addition, a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate a sufficient 

nexus between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the underlying 

complaint. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631,636 (9th 

Cir. 2015). “The relationship . . . is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would 

grant relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” Id. (quotation marks 

omitted). “Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief 

requested.” Id.; see Saddiq v. Ryan, 703 F. App’x 570, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming denial of 

preliminary injunction because the prisoner did not establish a nexus between the claims of 

retaliation in his motion and the claims set forth in his complaint).

Plaintiff’s filing fails to address the elements required under Winter. Plaintiff does not 

identify the relief sought; indeed, he seeks injunctive relief based on an incident that took place 

over two and a half years ago, alleging that he was denied witnesses as well as a staff assistant. 

However, plaintiff does not challenge a disciplinary hearing in this action. Rather, plaintiff 

alleges that on July 25, 2017, defendants failed to protect plaintiff from an inmate attack, and then 

failed to provide medical care. Plaintiff’s filing fails to demonstrate a nexus to the facts alleged 

in the operative pleading, and as such, his allegations will not be heard on the merits in this 

action. In addition, it is well established that the transfer of an inmate to another prison while his 

claims are pending generally will moot any claims for injunctive relief. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 

F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 

1991) (a prisoner’s claims for injunctive relief generally become moot upon transfer.). Because 

Case 2:18-cv-02613-MCE-KJN Document 72 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 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

3

plaintiff is no longer housed at the Placer County Jail, any claim for injunctive relief is now 

moot. For all of these reasons, plaintiff’s filing is insufficient and is denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s filings (ECF Nos. 70, 71) are

denied without prejudice. 

Dated: January 28, 2020

/khad2613.den

Case 2:18-cv-02613-MCE-KJN Document 72 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 3