Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00070-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARVIN B. CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. GRICEWICH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 29)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Arvin B. Carroll (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 16, 2007, plaintiff renewed

his motion seeking a preliminary injunction. Although plaintiff fails to specify the precise order he

is seeking, it appears to be one mandating that his inmate appeals be properly processed in a timely

manner and prohibiting defendants Gricewich and Peiffer (“defendants”) from retaliating against

him.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction 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 ofthe action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1)

a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air

Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 10/05/07 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

demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold

requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.”

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983) (citations omitted);

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). “Abstract injury is not enough.”

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 1665. “[P]laintiff must show that he has sustained or is

immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct

and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The key issue is whether the plaintiff is ‘likely to

suffer future injury.’” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126 (quoting Lyons at 105, 1667). When a government

agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal

affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state agency is involved, these considerations

are, in anything, strengthened because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128. “[A]ny

injunctive relief awarded must avoid unnecessary disruption to the state agency’s ‘normal course of

proceeding.’” Id. at 1128 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 669, 679

(1974)). 

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

Equitable remedies are “unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 10/05/07 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

that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will

be wronged again - a ‘likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.’” Lyons at 111,

1670 (quoting O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 502, 94 S.Ct. at 679). “[A] preliminary injunction is an

extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear

showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 

This action is proceeding against defendants for retaliation, in violation of the First

Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that defendants hindered his ability to utilize the inmate appeals

process in retaliation against him for complaining in writing about the failure to timely respond to

his appeals. Plaintiff alleges in his motion and supporting declaration that because defendants are

failing to respond to his grievances, his ability to exhaust is undermined, and his medical, legal, and

living condition issues “could have and still can bloom into major events seriously threatening my

welfare, health, or safety.” (Doc. 31, Carroll Dec., ¶5; Doc. 30, Court Record pgs. 3-4.)

The existence of an administrative remedy process does not create any substantive rights and

cannot support a claim for relief for violation of a constitutional right. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d

850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Massey v. Helman,

259 F.2d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001). Further, exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative

defense that must be raised and proven by defendants. As plaintiff was previously advised when his

access to the courts claim was dismissed, plaintiff’s constitutional right of access to the courts is not

violated until and unless he is barred from pursuing a civil suit on the ground that he did not exhaust

and that failure to exhaust is the result of defendants’ actions. (Docs. 23, 32.) For these reasons, the

bare interference with the inmate appeals process and plaintiff’s inability to exhaust do not, in this

action, confer upon the court jurisdiction to issue any order remedying those alleged harms. 

With respect to a retaliatory failure to process grievances that affects plaintiff’s living

conditions at the prison, non-specific allegations that harm could have been suffered and might be

suffered in the future are simply not sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm. Plaintiff has not met

his burden as the moving party by making a showing that he is under any immediate or real harm.

///

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 10/05/07 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

Therefore, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief, filed July 16, 2007, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 4, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 10/05/07 Page 4 of 4