Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344-21/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

ANDRE CRAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HASTY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-1344 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this action, Plaintiff alleges that on February 2, 2011, while he was 

housed at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), Defendants Rayner and Hasty used excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they sprayed O.C. spray into Plaintiff’s cell. 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 September 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for “immediate federal protection.” (ECF 

No. 74.) Plaintiff is no longer housed at HDSP; he is now housed at California State PrisonLancaster (“Lancaster”), a prison located within the Central District of California. In his motion, 

Plaintiff alleges that on September 24, 2013, Captain Pfeil, a non-party to this action, made 

threatening statements to Plaintiff at a Classification Committee Hearing. In particular, Plaintiff 

alleges Captain Pfeil threatened to have an inmate put in Plaintiff’s cell to attack Plaintiff in 

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 87 Filed 12/30/13 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

retaliation for Plaintiff’s litigation of the instant action. 

On October 15, 2013, prompted by an order of this Court, the warden of Lancaster filed a 

status report and several supporting declarations addressing Plaintiff’s safety concerns. (ECF No. 

77.) Accordingly, on October 17, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s 

motion be construed as a motion for injunctive relief and be denied. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff then 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 79.) 

Furthermore, on December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed another motion for “immediate federal 

protection.” (ECF No. 82.) In this motion, Plaintiff alleges that on November 7, 2013, he filled 

out a form requesting an interview with staff regarding his single-cell status. Plaintiff alleges that 

on November 25, 2013, L. Spring came to Plaintiff’s cell with the form and stated that she was 

going to throw it in the garbage. When Plaintiff tried to explain, L. Spring allegedly stated, “Fuck 

you, you wanna sue cops.” One hour later, Plaintiff was taken to medical intake for a psychiatric 

evaluation. After being released, Plaintiff alleges that L. Spring falsely accused him of making 

threatening statements to her, as a result of which Plaintiff was placed in administrative 

segregation. Plaintiff alleges that L. Spring acted in retaliation for plaintiff’s pursuit of the instant 

action. Plaintiff alleges that if this court does not intervene, he will have to commit suicide.

Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the undersigned has reviewed the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations with respect to Plaintiff’s motion for 

immediate federal protection. (ECF No. 74.) As noted in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 

recommendations, no Defendants are located at Lancaster, and all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s 

motion concern non-defendants. Therefore, generally speaking, the Court does not have the 

power to order injunctive relief against these non-parties. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110–111 (1969). Although the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), 

provides a limited exception to this rule, injunctive relief pursuant to the All Writs Act is not 

warranted here. The investigation into Plaintiff’s claims does not support Plaintiff’s allegations 

that the threatening statements were made.

The Court also construes Plaintiff’s second motion for federal protection (ECF No. 82) as 

a motion for injunctive relief and denies that motion. Plaintiff’s motion alleges ongoing 

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 87 Filed 12/30/13 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

retaliatory action by officers in Lancaster. As such, it suffers from the same defects as Plaintiff’s 

first motion with respect to the identity and location of the officers. To the extent that Plaintiff 

alleges ongoing retaliatory action by officers in Lancaster, those allegations should be raised in a 

civil rights complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California. Furthermore, Plaintiff has still not demonstrated any justification for invocation of the 

the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to serve Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

Monica Anderson with Plaintiff’s December 5, 2013, motion due to concerns regarding plaintiff’s 

mental health status.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for immediate federal protection (ECF No. 74), construed as a 

motion for injunctive relief, is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for immediate federal protection (ECF No. 82), construed as a 

motion for injunctive relief, is denied;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order and a copy of Plaintiff’s motion 

for immediate federal protection (ECF No. 82) on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica 

Anderson. 

Dated: December 27, 2013

/crav1344.805

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 87 Filed 12/30/13 Page 3 of 3