Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344-39/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 AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley on 

September 28, 2015. This action is proceeding to trial on plaintiff’s claim that on February 2, 

2011, while housed at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), defendants Raynor and Hasty used 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they sprayed O.C. spray into 

plaintiff’s cell during a cell search.

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 24, 2015 motion for injunctive relief. (ECF 

No. 145.) For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this motion be denied.

In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that he is now housed at California State PrisonSacramento (“CSP-Sac.”) Plaintiff requests that the court order CSP-Sac officials to assign him 

permanent single cell status. Plaintiff alleges that on August 19, 2015, CSP-Sac officials 

threatened to remove plaintiff’s single cell status. Plaintiff alleges that he requires single cell 

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 150 Filed 08/28/15 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

status because of his own propensity for violence against cellmates. Plaintiff alleges that he will 

kill or attempt to kill any man they place in his cell. 

The purpose of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is to preserve the 

status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the 

court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. 

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is an 

“extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is “never awarded as of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 

674, 689–90 (2008) (citations omitted). Instead, in every case, the court “must balance the 

competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or 

withholding of the requested relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 23 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The instant motion requires 

that the court determine whether plaintiff has established the following: (1) he is likely to 

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

relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. 

Id. at 20 (citations omitted).

A claim for injunctive relief must relate to the subject matter of the action. See, e.g., 

Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1250–51 (10th Cir. 2010); Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 299–

300 (6th Cir. 2010); Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff’s request 

for an order directing that he receive permanent single cell status is unrelated to the merits of this 

action. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied.1 However, due 

to the serious nature of plaintiff’s allegations, the undersigned will direct that plaintiff’s pending 

motion be served on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a 

copy of this order and plaintiff’s August 24, 2015 motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 145) on 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson; and

////

 

1

 The undersigned has also determined that invocation of the All Writs Act is not appropriate. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. 

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 150 Filed 08/28/15 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 

145) 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, 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 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: August 28, 2015

Cr1344.alw(3)

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 150 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 3