Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00208/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00208-4/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

RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s 

civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is proceeding on the second amended 

complaint against defendants Davey, Rodriguez, Robinette, Weeks, Barton, Probst, and Madrigal, 

correctional officers, and two parole commissioners, all located at High Desert State Prison 

(“HDSP”). Plaintiff alleges that these defendants retaliated against him for exercising his rights 

to access the courts and practice his religion, and failed to protect plaintiff, based on incidents that 

occurred at HDSP between February 12, 2009, and March 8, 2013. On September 11, 2015, 

plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he was transferred to the California 

State Prison in Lancaster, California (“LAC”). (ECF No. 19.) Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief filed September 14, 2015. As set forth below, plaintiff’s 

motion should be denied.

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 6
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

II. Standards

The party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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.” Winter v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 

1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief 

hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean 

Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff 

demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the 

public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits 

of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for 

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious 

questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after 

Winter).

The principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to 

render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). As noted above, in addition to 

demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary 

injunction, plaintiff must show a “fair chance of success on the merits” of his claim. Sports 

Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal citation 

omitted). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there 

will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is 

brought to trial. In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any 

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the 

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to 

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

////

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 6
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

III. Plaintiff’s Motion

In his motion for injunctive relief, signed August 30, 2015, plaintiff alleges the following:

Prison staff at RJD are “deliberately depriving him of his Eighth Amendment rights to 

protection from violence, and are subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment because of his 

litigation in violation of the First Amendment.” (ECF No. 21 at 7.) Officer Cruz refused to 

deliver plaintiff to an attorney visit on March 27, 2015. (ECF No. 21 at 4.) Officer Mendoza 

wrote a false 128 (counseling chrono) against plaintiff claiming he was out of bounds, which he 

claims will be used by the Parole Board to punish him. (ECF No. 21 at 9.) From March 27, 

2015, to August of 2015, various correctional officers at RJD refused to provide plaintiff with 

lower bunk cell housing. In July of 2015, plaintiff was placed on loss of privilege (“LOP”) status 

without a CDCR 115 (rules violation report or “RVR”) or a hearing. Plaintiff claims that 

defendants “and agents of CDCR [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] are 

clearly acting in a conspiracy to punish plaintiff without cause for his litigation against CDCR 

Officials.” (ECF No. 21 at 9.) 

Plaintiff supports his request for injunctive relief by including incidents that occurred 

prior to plaintiff’s housing at RJD, such as his claims that while housed at Salinas Valley State 

Prison (“SVSP”) in 2008, Officers Ambriz and Yee wrote and allegedly backdated a false RVR 

for conduct conducive to violence (threats against staff) to support his placement in ad seg and in 

retaliation for plaintiff suing them. (ECF No. 21 at 6, 43, 45-46.) Plaintiff also references claims 

from the instant action: the parole commissioners relied on the allegedly false August 30, 2003 

“Smoking in a State Building” CDC 128A (counseling chrono) (ECF No. 21 at 11), and 

repeatedly referred to an allegedly false 2010 RVR for fighting1and a 2010 RVR for misuse of 

state property (ECF No. 21 at 80), and the 2008 allegedly false RVR, in denying plaintiff parole 

(ECF No. 21 at 6, 11-12). Plaintiff contends that the “current falsification of the LOP and 128A 

for allegedly being out-of-bounds proves an ongoing pattern of retaliation with false allegations 

by CDCR guards.” (ECF No. 21 at 12, 32.)

 

1

 Plaintiff did not provide a copy of the Board’s transcript in which they allegedly referred to the 

2010 RVR for fighting, and did not provide a copy of such RVR.

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 6
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

4

IV. Discussion

No defendants are located at RJD, where plaintiff was housed at the time of the 

underlying allegations. Thus, the pending motion seeks injunctive relief against individuals who 

are not named as defendants. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are 

not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 

U.S. 100, 112 (1969). If plaintiff wishes to challenge the actions of prison staff at RJD, he must 

file an action in the Southern District of California. 

In addition, plaintiff has now been transferred to LAC, so any threat of imminent physical 

harm related to plaintiff’s inappropriate cell housing at RJD or imminent harm related to RJD 

prison staff’s alleged retaliation is now moot. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) 

(inmate’s request for declaratory judgment rendered moot by his transfer to another prison). 

When an inmate is transferred to another prison and there is no reasonable expectation or 

demonstrated probability that he will again be subjected to the conditions from which he seeks 

injunctive relief, his claim for injunctive relief should be dismissed as moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 

64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). The possibility that an inmate might be transferred back 

to the prison where the injury occurred is too speculative to overcome mootness. Id.; see also

Wiggins v. Rushen, 760 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir. 1985).

Plaintiff’s vague claim that CDCR prison staff are engaged in a pattern and practice of 

retaliating against plaintiff by issuing false charges, 128As, and RVRs, without more, is 

insufficient to demonstrate that he would be subject to such alleged conditions at LAC. Plaintiff 

attempts to connect the LOP and 128A issued in 2015 at RJD with a 128A that issued in 2003 at 

Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”), and with allegedly false RVRs that issued in 2008 at

SVSP for conduct conducive to violence, and in 2010 for misuse of state property at HDSP. 

These various charges issued over a wide span of years and thus are remote in time as well as 

geography, involve different prison staff, and are unrelated in subject matter. Plaintiff sets forth 

no factual allegations demonstrating any connection between the prison staff at RJD and those at 

PVSP, SVSP or HDSP. Rather, plaintiff simply alleges that there is a “conspiracy” without 

sufficient factual support. Plaintiff’s conclusory claims that all of these RVRs and the 128A were 

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 6
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

5

false and issued in retaliation for plaintiff exercising his First Amendment rights, standing alone, 

fail to demonstrate a pattern or practice. The undersigned finds plaintiff’s alleged conspiracy 

claim too attenuated and vague to support an injunctive relief claim.2 If plaintiff challenges the 

issuance of the LOP or 128A at RJD, he must file an action in the Southern District of California 

after exhausting his administrative remedies. 

For all of these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied.

V. Request for Extension of Time

On September 1, 2015, plaintiff signed a motion for sixty day extension of time to receive 

his property, and to secure his change of address and legal property in light of his impending 

transfer to LAC. (ECF No. 20 at 1.) However, plaintiff signed a change of address on September 

3, 2015 (ECF No. 19). At the time of plaintiff’s filing, there were no pending court deadlines that 

required a response. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is denied without prejudice. 

In an abundance of caution, plaintiff will be granted thirty days in which to file objections to 

these findings and recommendations. 

VI. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for extension of time 

(ECF No. 20) is denied without prejudice; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (ECF No. 21) 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 days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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.” Any response to the objections shall be 

filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 

 

2

 Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the March 27, 2015 attorney visit are unavailing because he 

concedes that his attorney cancelled the appointment without plaintiff’s knowledge. (ECF No. 21 

at 3:13-15.) Prison staff cannot be held liable for failing to deliver plaintiff to meet with an 

attorney who was not there.

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 09/22/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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: September 22, 2015

/cran0208.pi

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 09/22/15 Page 6 of 6