Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02561/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02561-1/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

WILLIAM HOUSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. ELDRIDGE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-2561 WBS KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed 

November 21, 2016. (ECF No. 9.) For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that 

this motion be denied.

Plaintiff alleges that on November 17, 2016, he attended a prison disciplinary hearing, 

related to a disciplinary report from 2015. Plaintiff alleges that his due process rights were 

violated at this hearing. Plaintiff alleges that Lieutenant Heise found him guilty of the 

disciplinary charges in retaliation for plaintiff’s prosecution of the pending action. As relief, 

plaintiff requests that “defendants” Lieutenant Kile and Lieutenant Heise and each of their 

officers be “restrained from being in any blind area of the institution where there’s no other 

inmates around or camera to do surveillance in that area.” Plaintiff appears to suggest that 

Lieutenants Kile and Heise and other officers may engage in further retaliation if they are alone 

Case 2:16-cv-02561-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 12/12/16 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

with plaintiff and not under surveillance.

Although plaintiff states that Lieutenants Kile and Heise are defendants, they are not 

named as defendants in the complaint. In addition, the undersigned has simultaneously issued an 

order screening the complaint. Therefore, no defendants have yet been served. Usually, persons 

or entities not parties to an action are not subject to orders for injunctive relief. Zenith v. Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief should be denied because no defendants have yet been served, and because 

Lieutenants Kile and Heise are not named as defendants. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s claim that defendant Heise retaliated against him for litigating the 

instant action by finding him guilty of disciplinary charges is vague and conclusory. Plaintiff 

does not allege any connection between Lieutenant Heise and the defendants named in the 

complaint. Plaintiff’s suggestion that Lieutenants Heise and Kile, and other officers, may further 

retaliate against plaintiff if left alone with plaintiff is also speculative. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

motion for injunctive relief should also be denied on grounds that it is not well supported.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction (ECF No. 9) 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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 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 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: December 12, 2016

Hou2561.pi

Case 2:16-cv-02561-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 2