Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02466/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02466-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBIE LEE CRISP,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 15-cv-2466 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 1, 2016, the undersigned referred this action to the Post-Screening 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) Project, and stayed this action for 90 days. (ECF No. 

25.) This action is set for a settlement conference before the undersigned on November 10, 2016. 

(ECF No. 33.) 

This action is proceeding on the original complaint against defendants Warden Duffy and 

Chief Medical Officer Clark. Plaintiff alleges that on October 12, 2015, he was assaulted by 

inmate Weber. Plaintiff alleges that prior to the assault, inmate Weber had mental health 

problems that involved acting aggressively. Plaintiff alleges that due to understaffing, inmate 

Weber had not been properly monitored. Plaintiff alleges that inadequate staffing caused the 

attack by inmate Weber. 

////

Case 2:15-cv-02466-KJN Document 36 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 12, 2016 motion for a temporary restraining 

order. (ECF No. 34.) In this motion, plaintiff requests that prison officials be barred from 

removing exhibits and legal documents from his legal materials. The undersigned construes 

plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief as a motion for a protective order. Clearly, plaintiff’s 

motion does not seek dispositive relief on the merits of the complaint. The motion instead 

addresses procedures that the parties must utilize in litigating the case. See United States v. 

Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 586 (1st Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff does not appear to claim that any of his legal materials have been recently 

confiscated. Instead, plaintiff has provided administrative grievances submitted by plaintiff in 

2014 and early 2015 alleging mishandling of administrative grievances and other legal documents 

belonging to plaintiff. Because plaintiff has provided no evidence that prison officials have 

recently confiscated his legal materials, or will do so in the near future, plaintiff’s motion for a 

protective order is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary 

restraining order (ECF No. 34), construed as a motion for a protective order, is denied.

Dated: August 31, 2016

Cr2466.tro

Case 2:15-cv-02466-KJN Document 36 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 2