Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS CLINTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1600 LKK CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302(b)(21). Currently before the court is plaintiff’s

motion for a permanent or a preliminary injunction. 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of ordering defendant California

Department of Corrections (CDC) to: (1) not retaliate against plaintiff for filing prison

grievances; (2) restrict access to plaintiff’s central file; (3) exercise extreme caution in

transferring any inmates that were housed at the California Correctional Center-Susanville and

Trinity River Conservation Camp # 3 at the same time that plaintiff was housed there; (4) stop

opening plaintiff’s confidential mail; (5) do all photocopying of confidential legal documents in

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 21 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

plaintiff’s presence and to give such documents directly to plaintiff; (6) exercise extreme caution

not to exercise any reprisals; (7) leave all of plaintiff’s legal documents in visual sight of plaintiff

and not touch plaintiff’s legal documents; (8) give plaintiff all means necessary to ensure

plaintiff’s access to the court. Plaintiff states that defendant CDC has a history of jeopardizing

the safety of rape victims, has jeopardized plaintiff’s safety as a rape victim, has lost his legal

documents and has sometimes limited his access to the law library. Presumably the injunctive

relief sought by plaintiff would alleviate these issues. 

In general, a preliminary injunction is appropriate if a plaintiff demonstrates either

(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or

(2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardship tips sharply

in plaintiff's favor. See Sony Computer Entertainment Am., Inc. v. Bleem, LLC, 214 F.3d 1022,

1025 (9th Cir.2000); Prudential Real Estate Affiliates v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 874 (9th

Cir.2000). “These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required

degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Prudential Real

Estate, 204 F.3d at 874. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. See Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Although the events that plaintiff describes are unpleasant, the undersigned finds

that plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he has sustained or is in immediate

danger of sustaining injuries that would justify granting the relief requested. See Sony Computer

Equipment Am, Inc., 214 F.3d at 1025. While the court is sympathetic to the reality that

litigating a civil rights claim while incarcerated presents challenges that are unique to inmate

plaintiffs because of legitimate prison regulations which prohibit unfettered access to legal

materials, the Supreme Court has recognized that inmate plaintiffs must accept these challenges. 

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). Additionally, federal courts must afford

deference to the appropriate state prison authorities in matters of prison administration, and

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 21 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

therefore are required to balance the state's interests against the need to protect an inmate's

constitutional rights. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987) ( “Prison administration is

AAA a task that has been committed to the responsibility of AAA [the legislative and executive]

branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint.”). The

undersigned finds that the injunctive relief requested by plaintiff will adversely impact the prison

administration system because it would compel state officials to take action–restricting access to

plaintiff’s central file, and providing plaintiff special library and photocopy access, that go

beyond the requirements of the applicable state administrative rules. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary or permanent injunctive relief (doc. 19) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

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).

DATED: February 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 21 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3