Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00823/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00823-9/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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Document 25)

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. On October 

8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed 

within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff filed objections on December 19, 2014.

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 45 Filed 05/11/15 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 

and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff’s motion seeks an order enjoining Defendant Beard from enforcing NCR 13-01, 

and/or from making threats to take or destroy his religious property. Insofar as Plaintiff’s motion 

relates to the enforcement of NCR 13-01, the regulation is no longer in effect. Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on May 7, 2015, to permit Plaintiff to 

cite the relevant regulation. Therefore, at this time, there is no operative pleading and this action 

no longer focuses on NCR 13-01. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 

129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff also requests that the Court enjoin Defendant, “his successors in office, his 

officials, agents and employees, and all other persons acting in concern and participation with 

Defendant” from retaliatory threats. However, the Court does not have jurisdiction over anyone 

other than Defendant, it is does not appear that he was involved in the actions complained of. 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969); S.E.C. 

v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Finally, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that this action is not about retaliatory 

threats or searches, and thus the issues are beyond the scope of available equitable relief. See

e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury 

in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy 

requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its 

existence.”) (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 

1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or 

controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 45 Filed 05/11/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 14, 2014, are ADOPTED in 

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Document 23) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 45 Filed 05/11/15 Page 3 of 3