(PC)Davis v. California Correctional Institution Trust Office Officials et al, No. 1:2018cv01393 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Directing that he be provided law library access 5 be Denied ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/31/18. Objections to F&R due 14-Day Deadline (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE LAMONT DAVIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION TRUST OFFICE OFFICIALS, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01393-SAB (PC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY BE DENIED [ECF No. 5] Plaintiff Terrence Lamont Davis is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for injunctive relief for access to the law library. 21 I. 22 INTRODUCTION 23 Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 10, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the Court directed 24 Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 25 forty-five days, i.e. November 29, 2018. (ECF No. 4.) 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Legal Standards 4 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural 5 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). For each form of relief sought in federal court, 6 Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield 7 v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under 8 threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and 9 imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the 10 defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury. 11 Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 12 Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 13 provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall 14 extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or 15 plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such 16 relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, 17 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. ' 18 3626(a)(1)(A). Thus, the federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue equitable 19 orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violations which 20 form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Steel Co. v. 21 Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (1998). 22 B. Analysis 23 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The Court 24 is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 25 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any 26 portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which 27 relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s 2 1 complaint and determined whether there are any cognizable claims in this action. The mere pendency 2 of this action does not provide a basis for the Court to issue an order for the injunctive relief that Plaintiff 3 seeks. 4 Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 5 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 6 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he 7 suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” 8 Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) 9 (internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis, 518 10 11 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. A prisoner cannot submit conclusory declarations of injury by claiming his access to the courts 12 has been impeded. Thus, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial of access without 13 further elaboration. Plaintiff must demonstrate “actual injury” from the denial and/or delay of access. 14 The Supreme Court has described the “actual injury” requirement: 15 16 17 18 [T]he inmate … must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. He might show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. Or that he suffered arguably actionable harm that he wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied by inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a complaint. 19 20 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 21 In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate “actual injury” by the failure of 22 access to photocopy services. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in the absence of preliminary 23 injunctive relief he is likely to suffer actual injury in prosecuting his case. “Speculative injury does not 24 constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine 25 Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988), citing Goldies Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior 26 Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has provided no basis for this Court to interfere with 27 the prison’s administration of its access to the law library and legal property, and his request for 28 injunctive relief should be denied. 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. 1 2 III. 3 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION According, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge 4 5 to this action. Further, for the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s 6 7 motion for an order directing that he be provided law library access (ECF No. 8.) be DENIED. 8 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 10 after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 11 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 12 Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 13 in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 14 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 October 31, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.