(PC) Carr v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2009cv00826 - Document 106 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/10/11 recommending that plaintiff's 11/22/10 motion for injunctive relief 78 be denied. MOTION for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 78 filed by Arthur Carr referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Carr v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al Doc. 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARTHUR CARR, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-0826 GEB KJN P Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. H. HER, et al., / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. In the instant action, plaintiff’s allegations relate to an alleged March 10, 2008 18 attack while plaintiff was housed at California State Prison - Solano. The defendants named in 19 this action were employed at California State Prison - Solano. 20 Plaintiff has filed a motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary 21 injunction concerning restricted access to the law library at Pleasant Valley State Prison, 22 Coalinga, where he is currently housed. Plaintiff seeks an order directing the “State/defendants 23 to permit copying of administrative rules/records and allow sufficient copies to protect the 24 originality of each document/paper duplicated.” (Dkt. No. 78 at 5.) On December 3, 2010, 25 defendants filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 82.) By separate order, plaintiff was granted leave to 26 file a late reply. (Dkt. No. 99.) Plaintiff’s reply was filed on December 23, 2010. (Dkt. No. 86.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to 2 demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 3 in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 4 injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 5 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). 6 A Ninth Circuit panel has found that post-Winter, this circuit’s sliding scale 7 approach or “serious questions” test survives “when applied as part of the four-element Winter 8 test.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 2011 WL 208360, at *7 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2011). 9 “That is, ‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply 10 towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also 11 shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public 12 interest.” Id. In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 13 injunctive relief “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm 14 the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct 15 the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 16 Initially, the principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the 17 court’s power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 11A Charles Alan 18 Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). As noted 19 above, in addition to demonstrating that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to grant 20 the preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show a “fair chance of success on the merits” of his 21 claim. Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982) 22 (internal citation omitted). Implicit in this required showing is that the relief awarded is only 23 temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction 24 when the action is brought to trial. In addition, as a general rule this court is unable to issue an 25 order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. 26 Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 2 1 The claims on which plaintiff’s motion is predicated are not included in the third 2 amended complaint on which this action is proceeding. For that reason, the claims will not be 3 given a hearing on the merits at trial. Further, as discussed more fully below, these claims do not 4 implicate this court’s jurisdiction in a way that might justify application of the All Writs Act to 5 reach officials at Pleasant Valley State Prison, Coalinga, who are not named in the underlying 6 litigation.1 7 Plaintiff’s claims that his access to the courts has been impeded are unavailing. 8 An inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v. 9 Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21 (1977). A prisoner claiming that his right of access to the courts 10 has been violated must show that: 1) access was so limited as to be unreasonable, and 2) the 11 inadequate access caused actual injury. Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994). A 12 prisoner cannot make conclusory declarations of injury, but instead must demonstrate that a 13 non-frivolous legal claim has been frustrated or impeded. To prevail, however, it is not enough 14 for an inmate to show some sort of denial. An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to 15 contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a 16 claim.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348 (1996). 17 In Lewis v. Casey, the United States Supreme Court held that prison inmates have 18 a constitutionally protected right to access the courts to bring civil rights actions to challenge 19 their conditions of confinement and to bring challenges to their criminal convictions. Id. at 351. 20 The right of access to the courts “guarantees no particular methodology but rather the conferral of 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Admittedly, the fact that injunctive relief is sought from one not a party to litigation does not automatically preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) permits the court to issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). Nevertheless, the undersigned does not conclude that injunctive relief is appropriate in this case. 3 1 a capability – the capability of bringing contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of 2 confinement before the courts.” Id. at 356. Under Lewis v. Casey, prison officials violate this 3 constitutional right to access the courts if, by their acts, they prevent an inmate from bringing, or 4 caused an inmate to lose, an actionable claim of this type. Id. 5 Under rare circumstances, the deprivation of photocopies might rise to the level of 6 violating an inmate’s constitutional right of access to the courts, but such a claim would not 7 accrue until plaintiff suffered an actual injury, as defined by Lewis v. Casey. Moreover, relief 8 would have to be sought in a new civil rights action, brought in the Fresno Division of this 9 court.2 Here, plaintiff does not allege such an actual injury in the instant motion. Rather, 10 plaintiff alleges an inability to photocopy regulations from the California Department of 11 Corrections Operations Manual or other administrative manuals for use as exhibits, and a revised 12 policy reducing the total number of photocopies provided from three to two. Plaintiff has failed 13 to identify a specific instance where he was denied the right to bring a claim, or lost a claim, 14 based on these photocopy restrictions. Moreover, review of the instant action reveals plaintiff 15 has met his court deadlines and diligently prosecuted this action. Between August 2010 and 16 February 2011, plaintiff filed 24 separate documents, including a 55 page third amended 17 complaint. Plaintiff’s case is proceeding to trial. The record reflects that plaintiff has been able 18 to pursue his claims zealously. Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the acts complained of 19 have, or will in any cognizable way, threaten his right of access to the courts. 20 For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be 21 denied. 22 //// 23 //// 24 25 26 2 Plaintiff is required to first exhaust his administrative remedies as to any claim prior to bringing the claim in federal court. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 4 1 2 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s November 22, 2010 motion for injunctive relief (dkt. No. 78) be denied. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 5 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 8 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 9 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 10 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: March 10, 2011 12 13 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 carr0826.tro2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
