Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02415/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02415-15/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

CHARLES CHATMAN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2415 RRB KJM P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges, among other things, that defendant Pontarolo retaliated against

him and seized his legal materials, including transcripts, police reports, crime scene photographs,

and appellate briefs, necessary for further pursuit of relief from his criminal convictions. On July

10, 2007, he filed a motion for injunctive relief, asking that defendant Pontarolo be directed to

return these legal materials. On October 2, 2007, the court directed defendant Pontarolo to

respond to plaintiff’s motion.

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits

and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of

hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122

Case 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 87 Filed 11/27/07 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

 Plaintiff quotes at length from the High Desert State Prison Supplemental Operational 1

Manual, but has not attached copies of these regulations, in contravention of Local Rule 5-133(i). 

Accordingly, the court will not consider what application, if any, these regulations have to the

issues raised by this motion.

2

F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374,

1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal

point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under

any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury.” Id. 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. Id.

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

A. Likelihood Of Success On The Merits

Pontarolo, the Receiving and Release Officer at High Desert State Prison, denies

that he confiscated the legal materials as a retaliatory measure, averring that the materials were

removed because plaintiff had more than the six cubic feet of property permitted an inmate. He

also asserts that he told plaintiff he could exchange other items for his legal property. Opp’n,

Decl. of D. Pontarolo ¶¶ 2-3; see also 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3190(c) (six cubic feet of property). 

Plaintiff argues that Pontarolo neither cited nor followed the regulations relating

to legal property. Reply at 8-12. He cites to 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3161, which allows inmates 1

to “possess up to one cubic foot of legal materials/documents related to their active cases, in

excess of the six cubic feet of allowable property. . . .” Reply at 9 & Decl. of Charles Chatman

(Chatman Decl. II) ¶¶ 3-4. 

Plaintiff has not shown he had an active case at the time of the alleged

confiscation. Plaintiff alleges that the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review

Case 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 87 Filed 11/27/07 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

3

on January 15, 2003, giving him a year to file a federal habeas petition. Mot., Decl. of Charles

Chatman (Chatman Decl. I) ¶ 7. He does not allege that he in fact had filed such a petition or any

other action relating to his criminal conviction or that his possession of the materials would not

have exceeded the six cubic foot limit. Accordingly, plaintiff has not borne his burden of

showing he has a likelihood of success on the merits.

B. Irreparable Injury

Plaintiff alleges he will be unable to file a federal habeas petition without his

transcripts and thus unable to challenge his conviction and the resulting sentence of ninety years

to life. Chatman Decl. I ¶ 10. He also argues, however, that he will be able to pursue such a

petition because he will be able to show that the statute of limitations has been tolled as the result

of the confiscation of his legal property. Reply at 6. Accordingly he has not demonstrated

irreparable injury.

C. Other Matters

While plaintiff says he has seen the box containing his materials sitting in the

Receiving and Release Office in C-Facility of High Desert State Prison on unspecified dates,

Chatman Decl. II ¶ 5, plaintiff’s general suggestion is insufficient to rebut Pontarolo’s verified

assertion that he does not currently have possession or control of plaintiff’s legal materials,

Pontarolo Decl. ¶ 4. Accordingly, entering a mandatory injunction against Pontarolo would

have no effect. The court nevertheless urges plaintiff’s custodians to make the legal materials

available to plaintiff within the framework of the applicable regulations to allow him to pursue

habeas relief.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s July 10, 2007 motion for

injunctive relief 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, any party may file written

Case 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 87 Filed 11/27/07 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

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: November 26, 2007. 

2

chat2415.inj

Case 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 87 Filed 11/27/07 Page 4 of 4