Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02835/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02835-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donell Thomas Haynie
Plaintiff
E. Liljohn
Defendant

Document Text:

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

DONELL THOMAS HAYNIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. LILJOHN,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-CV-2835-MCE-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 are plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 

28 and 29).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The matter currently proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on October 

23, 2018. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff claims defendants used excessive force in violation of his 

rights under the Eighth Amendment. See id. On November 7, 2019, the court determined the 

complaint was appropriate for service, see ECF No. 10, and on December 19, 2018, defendants 

filed their answer, see ECF No. 15. On February 27, 2019, the court issued a scheduling order 

directing that discovery be completed by July 1, 2019, and that any dispositive motions be filed 

within 90 days thereafter. See ECF No. 17. No dispositive motions were filed within the 

Case 2:18-cv-02835-MCE-DMC Document 34 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 4
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

established deadline and, on October 4, 2019, the court directed the parties to file trial-setting 

status reports. See ECF No. 21. Plaintiff filed his status report on October 18, 2019, see ECF 

No. 24, and defendant filed his status report on November 15, 2019, see ECF No. 26. The matter 

is now ready for issuance of a final scheduling order setting the case for trial before the assigned 

District Judge. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S CURRENT MOTIONS

Plaintiff has filed two motions for preliminary injunctive relief. See ECF Nos. 28 

and 29. In his first motion, filed on December 4, 2019, plaintiff states:

On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint 

pursuant to § 1983, against correctional officer E. Littlejohn, who is 

currently employed at the California Correctional Institution (C.C.I.). 

Plaintiff has alleged that Officer E. Littlejohn did in fact use excessive 

force against the plaintiff. 

Although this action has not yet been set for trial by the court, the 

defendant has expressed to the court its desire to schedule a settlement 

conference hearing. 

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff appeared before (CDCR) Unit 

Classification due to his reduced level of custody from a level three to 

level two (2) points. On October 30, 2019, the Classification staff

representative elected to endorse Plaintiff to Mule Creek State Prison 

(MCSP) level (2). 

However, Plaintiff has just been given a last-minute notice by a 

correctional counselor K. Wiser, that staff at the California Correctional 

Institution has requested that Plaintiff be transferred to that Institution to 

deal with a “lawsuit.”

Plaintiff contends that the only lawsuit he has in any court is the 

present one, and that High Desert State Prison has scheduled Plaintiff’s 

departure to the California Correctional Institution for December 04, 2019. 

* * * 

Plaintiff is very fearful at this time and believes it is very necessary 

that the court issue an immediate temporary restraining order until this 

matter is fully resolved. . . .

ECF No. 28.

Plaintiff contends that, if a restraining order is not issued, he “. . .will be retaliated against via 

threats and physical violence or even death.” Id. at 3. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:18-cv-02835-MCE-DMC Document 34 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 4
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

In his second motion, filed on December 12, 2019, plaintiff states:

On December 7, 2019, at approximately 1737 hours, Plaintiff 

arrived at the California Correctional Institution level II facility Receiving 

& Release (R&R). Plaintiff was met by six (6) officers who stripped 

searched Plaintiff and told him to walk through the metal detector. As 

Plaintiff attempted to walk through, the detector went off, which was 

strange because Plaintiff had no metal on his person. 

Plaintiff was taken via van to the level four (4) facility, which 

Plaintiff was then met by a sergeant named Gregore and a heavy-set 

officer named J. Kigley. Kigley stated to Plaintiff “You now why you’re 

here?” and Plaintiff said no. Kigley told Plaintiff “Look I’m not going to 

play games with you. While you’re here you’re going to drop that fucking 

lawsuit against my partners or I’m going to beat the fuck out of you do 

you understand me?” Plaintiff was extremely in fear that he agreed.

ECF No. 29. 

Plaintiff asserts that “. . .he will eventually be physically hurt, continuously harassed and or 

forced to dismiss his suit against the defendant if he is not immediately to [sic] Mule Creek State 

Prison.” Id. at 3. 

III. DISCUSSION

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 

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 

Case 2:18-cv-02835-MCE-DMC Document 34 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 4
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

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).

Having considered the principles discussed above, the court finds that injunctive 

relief is not warranted. Plaintiff’s first motion seeks relief against unnamed members of the 

Classification Committee at plaintiff’s prior prison enjoining his transfer to the California 

Correctional Institution (CCI). Plaintiff’s second motion seeks relief against prison officials at 

CCI requiring him to be transferred to Mule Creek State Prison. None of these prison officials is 

a party to this action. Because plaintiff has not sought relief against a party to this action, 

plaintiff’s motions should be denied. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 112.

IV. CONCLUSION

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

injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 28 and 29) 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 21, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02835-MCE-DMC Document 34 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 4