Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02566/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02566-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUSTAFA WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2566-JLS (MDD)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[ECF No. 75]

vs.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Janis L.

Sammartino pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rules 72.1(c) and 72.3(f) of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

I. Background

On April 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging that

Defendants violated his civil rights by placing him in a cell with a violent inmate who he alleges

drugged and attacked him. Plaintiff contends that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his

health and safety when they ignored his repeated requests for a transfer. (Doc. No. 53). On May

11, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC. Subsequently, this Court issued a

Report and Recommendation that Defendants’ Motion be Granted. (Doc. No. 69). Plaintiff filed

objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the matter is currently pending before the

District Judge assigned to the case. 

/ / /

- 1 - 09cv2566-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02566-JLS-MDD Document 77 Filed 01/23/12 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

On December 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Injunctive Relief, requesting

that the Court issue an injunction before a final ruling is issued on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 

Specifically, Plaintiff requests that he be transferred to another prison and released from

administrative segregation. (Doc. No. 75). On January 5, 2011, Defendants filed a Response to

Plaintiff’s Motion, asserting that Plaintiff had not established a threat of irreparable injury. (Doc.

No. 76). 

II. Legal Standard

Injunctive relief is available to a litigant only upon a showing that there is a “real or

immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again - a ‘likelihood of substantial and

immediate irreparable injury.’” Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) (quoting O’Shea v.

Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 502 (1974)). “The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that absent a

threat of immediate and irreparable harm, the federal courts should not enjoin a state to conduct its

business in a particular way.” Hodgers-Durgin v. De la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 1999),

see also Midgett v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. 254 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must

show an immediate threat of substantial injury in order to obtain injunctive relief.).

When the Plaintiff is a prisoner, this well-established standard for injunctive relief must be

viewed in conjunction with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §

3626 (“PLRA”). Under the PLRA, the court must find that the prospective 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,” before granting

injunctive relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). In addition to making the findings required by the

PLRA, the court must give ‘substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the

operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.’” See Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237,

1239 (9th Cir.1998) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)). The PLRA should be viewed, however, as

changing the substantive requirements for determining when an injunction should be granted. 

Rather, the PLRA affects the type of prospective relief that the court may award. Gomez v.

Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2001); Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 103 F.3d 637, 647 (8th

Cir. 1996). 

- 2 - 09cv2566-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02566-JLS-MDD Document 77 Filed 01/23/12 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

III. Discussion

In his Motion, Plaintiff contends that he is being subjected to retaliation from prison

officials. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that on February 12, 2011, he was beaten by three

corrections officers who told him “you had it coming for suing our partners.” Id. Plaintiff alleges

that, following the incident, he was placed in administrative segregation (“Ad Seg”) and has yet to

be placed back in general population. According to Plaintiff, the officers filed false reports after

the incident, and as a result, he was found guilty of battery on a peace officer by a prison

disciplinary committee. Id. Plaintiff contends that because he is now confined in Ad Seg, his

access to the courts is being denied, leaving him unable to effectively prosecute his claim. 

Plaintiff asserts that he has suffered irreparable injury in two ways. First, his placement in Ad Seg

was ordered without due process, and Defendants are conspiring to keep him confined there

indefinitely. (Doc. No. 76 at 3). Second, he is suffering irreparable injury because he cannot do

legal research or contact an attorney, thus jeopardizing his underlying civil rights lawsuit. Id. 

As to Plaintiff’s claim regarding his placement in Ad Seg, Plaintiff has failed to establish

the threat of irreparable injury. According to Plaintiff’s own Motion and the attached Rules

Violation Report from February 12, 2011, Plaintiff’s placement in Ad Seg is currently under

review to correct possible errors. (Doc. No. 75 at 3-4). The matter is scheduled for re-hearing due

to concerns that Plaintiff was not given his full Due Process rights when he was originally found to

have attacked prison guards. (Doc. No. 75, Ex. 1). Rather than demonstrate a threat of future

harm, Plaintiff’s Motion demonstrates that Defendants are working to correct a possible past harm,

and are attempting to protect Plaintiff’s rights moving forward. The only harm suggested by

Plaintiff is that the Defendants are secretly working to keep him locked in Ad Seg indefinitely. 

(Doc. No. 75 at 4). Plaintiff fails, however, to provide any evidence beyond his speculation to

suggest that this is actually occurring. Absent a showing of real or immediate threat, the Court

cannot grant injunctive relief. Midgett, 254 F.3d at 850. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion fails on

this ground. 

As to Plaintiff’s claim that he is unable to pursue his underlying civil rights lawsuit, he has

likewise failed to demonstrate the threat of irreparable injury. Prison officials are required to

- 3 - 09cv2566-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02566-JLS-MDD Document 77 Filed 01/23/12 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

provide prisoners with meaningful access to the courts, including “adequate law libraries” or

“adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). 

In order to show that the right to access to the courts has been violated, a plaintiff must show that

he suffered an actual injury caused by an unreasonable lack of access to legal facilities. Vandelft

v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff’s only statement in support of his claim is

that he “does not have the needed time” to do legal research or contact an attorney. (Doc. No. 75

at 3). Plaintiff’s mere conclusory statement that he does not have enough time is insufficient to

support an award of injunctive relief. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111. Plaintiff does not point to a specific

instance where he was unable to pursue his claim. Vandelft, 31 F.3d at 797. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s claim fails on this ground as well.

As Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable

injury, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion be DENIED. 

This report and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (1988). Any party may

filed written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties by February 13, 2012. The

document shall be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed by February 27, 2012. 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 23, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 4 - 09cv2566-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02566-JLS-MDD Document 77 Filed 01/23/12 Page 4 of 4