Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. CUSTINO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-CV-0517-JAM-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order 

(Doc. 85).

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a 

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the 

moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser 

standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer 

controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is 

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 97 Filed 01/17/19 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

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The court cannot, 

however, issue an order against individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, if an inmate is seeking 

injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another 

prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an 

expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

Plaintiff alleges he was assaulted by his cellmate on November 17, 2018, and 

seeks an order requiring prison officials to grant him single-cell status. In this case, defendants 

are either former or retired prison officials at Mule Creek State Prison, where plaintiff was 

formerly housed and where the events alleged in the complaint occurred. The November 2018 

cell assault allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State Prison, where plaintiff is currently housed, 

but where no events alleged in the complaint occurred and no named defendants worked at the 

time. No Kern Valley State Prison officials are named as defendants to this action. Because the 

court does not have jurisdiction over prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison who are not 

parties to this action, the court cannot issue the requested order. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 

U.S. at 112. 

Moreover, injunctive relief is not warranted because plaintiff has not demonstrated 

the likelihood of irreparable injury absent an order requiring single-cell status. See Stormans, 

Inc., 586 F.3d at 1127. The November 2018 assault has already occurred and no prospective 

injunctive relief can remedy that. Any assertion of a repeat assault in the future would be purely 

speculative, particularly given the current record suggesting plaintiff instigated the November 

2018 cell fight. See Doc. 85, pg. 4 (Exhibit attached to plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 97 Filed 01/17/19 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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief (Doc. 85) 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 14 days 

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

with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 16, 2019

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 97 Filed 01/17/19 Page 3 of 3