Herrera v. Gardner et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/31/11 ORDERING that Defendants shall respond to plaintiffs allegations, as explained above, within seven days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs 39 motion for protection from CDCR is DENIED without prejudice; Clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order on Monica Anderson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General. (cc Monica Anderson) (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
-EFB (PC) Herrera v. Gardner et al Doc. 45 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 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants T. Lee and S. Borsch classified him as an associate to the Mexican Mafia gang. He states that in 1980-81, his family member dropped out of the Mexican Mafia gang in Old Folsom Prison, and the CDC staff placed him in protective custody. He states that the defendants know this, but have classified him as an associate to the gang so that they can house him with gang members, who will kill him. Plaintiff has now filed another document, in which he reiterates that he will be killed if he is housed with Mexican Mafia gang members. Dckt. No. 41. He attaches a document showing that he has recently been classified as an associate to the Mexican Mafia gang, as well as a classification committee document from April 6, 1994, in which the Mexican Mafia gang is listed as his enemy. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARMANDO HERRERA, Plaintiff, vs. GARDNER, et al., Defendants. / ORDER No. CIV S-10-1744 GEB EFB P Dockets.Justia.com 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 It is unclear from plaintiff's pleadings when he expects that he may be housed with Mexican Mafia gang members. If plaintiff's allegations are true, he may be in danger of physical harm. Therefore, the court construes his pleadings as a request for a preliminary injunction, and orders defendants to respond to the merits of his allegations within seven days of the date of this order. Specifically, defendants shall address whether this court should issue an order enjoining defendants and CDCR from allowing plaintiff to come into contact with Mexican Mafia gang members or sympathizers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (order granting an injunction binds parties, officers, agents, servants, employees, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them). Plaintiff has also filed a "Motion for Protection from CDCR officers" in which he implies that he expects retaliation from the correctional officers whom he has sued. Plaintiff does not claim that he has been retaliated against as a result of filing this lawsuit. If plaintiff is retaliated against in the future, he may then explain the circumstances to the court. Plaintiff's motion is therefore denied without prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants shall respond to plaintiff's allegations, as explained above, within seven days of the date of this order. 2. Plaintiff's motion for protection from CDCR is denied without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order on Monica Anderson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General. Dated: March 31, 2011. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?