Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00253/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00253-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LLEWELYN L. GABALIS, No. CIV S-09-0253-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

R. PLAINER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the

undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 27). 

In his one-page handwritten motion, plaintiff states:

I am writing you because on 10-25-09 I was put here in

Administrative Segregation pending the investigation into the death of my

cell mate who committed suicide by hanging his self. 

Anyway since I’ve been in Administrative Segregation I have

requested a number of times for all my legal materials for this case that’s

in my personal property. And all my request has gone un-answered. This

action constitute actual injury to my pursuit of my legal claim in this case. 

I hereby request an order compelling the authority here at High

Case 2:09-cv-00253-CMK Document 35 Filed 08/12/10 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 Defendants’ motion will be addressed by separate order. 1

2

Desert State Prison to hand over all my legal materials, papers, books, etc.,

for this case. As soon as possible. 

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the

moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res.

Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (1008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser

standard by focusing on the mere possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer

controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). 

In this case, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated the requisite

irreparable injury should the requested order not be issued. In particular, the docket reflects that,

despite plaintiff’s allegations of an inability to access his legal materials, he was able to file a

timely substantive opposition, with exhibits attached, to defendants’ motion for summary

judgment.1

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

relief (Doc. 27) is denied. 

DATED: August 11, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00253-CMK Document 35 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2