Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00823/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00823-5/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 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Document 17)

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. By 

separate order, the Court has found that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim under the First 

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

Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of CDCR. Plaintiff was ordered to submit service documents, and the 

time for submission of those documents has not yet passed.

On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a temporary restraining order 

and preliminary injunction.1 Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining the enforcement of a regulation 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a prior motion for temporary restraining order on May 30, 2014. The motion was denied on July 25, 

2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 09/18/14 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

that makes certain religious items non-allowable, and /or prohibiting threats of confiscation or 

destruction of Plaintiff’s religious items.

DISCUSSION

“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.

Here, Plaintiff requests that the Court prohibit the enforcement of Notice of Change to 

Regulations 13-01 (“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. 17, at 1-2. Plaintiff states that his 

religious property includes items that are no longer allowable under NCR 13-01, but are essential 

to his spiritual beliefs. He contends that he is suffering irreparable harm “in the form of mental 

anguish due to living under the continued threat” that his items may be confiscated and/or 

destroyed. ECF No. 17, at 8.

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm. Although Plaintiff 

states that he lives under the constant threat that his religious items may be taken or destroyed, he 

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 09/18/14 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

includes no facts to suggest that this may happen. In other words, Plaintiff’s worry, without 

more, is insufficient to establish a threat that is concrete and particularized, rather than 

conjectural or hypothetical.

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: September 17, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00823-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 09/18/14 Page 3 of 3