Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01423/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01423-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff's motions to submit declarations and exhibits in

support of his May 1, 2007 motion for injunctive relief (docket nos.

80, 85) are GRANTED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ODESSA BROWN II,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON,

et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1423 CW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

ADDRESSING RELATED PENDING

MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 58, 76, 80, 85)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff William Odessa Brown II, a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed

this pro se civil rights action when he was incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison (SVSP). 

Before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief

(docket nos. 58, 76).1

The Ninth Circuit has held that requests for injunctive relief

may be satisfied by either of two sets of criteria. The

"traditional" test requires the movant to: (1) establish a strong

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the possibility of

irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is

not granted; (3) show a balance of hardships favoring the movant;

and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public

interest. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football

League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). The "alternative"

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 96 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

test requires that the movant demonstrate either a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable

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

hardships tips sharply in his favor. Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d

793, 795 (9th Cir. 1990); Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856

F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988); American Motorcyclist Ass'n v.

Watt, 714 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. Diamontiney, 918 F.2d at 795. 

Plaintiff filed his first motion for injunctive relief (docket

no. 58) on October 23, 2006. In that motion, Plaintiff alleges he

was transferred from Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) to CTF on

September 21, 2006. (Oct. 23, 2006 Mot. for Inj. Relief at 1.) He

claims that, at the time he drafted the motion, his personal

property and legal materials were still at KVSP. (Id.) He

requests the Court to order the prison officials at KVSP to forward

his property to CTF so that he can continue to prosecute this

action. (Id. at 3.)

On May 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed another motion for injunctive

relief (docket no. 76) in which he alleges that CTF mailroom

staff's opening of his "legal mail" from this Court and from

Defendants is a violation of his rights to "confidentiality" and

access to the courts. (May 1, 2007 Mot. for Inj. Relief at 2.) He

claims that he "will not accept any legal mail that is being

presented to him as regular mail, not logged and/or stamped

received by the institution, and MOST IMPORTANTLY OPENED." (Id. at

3.) He requests an injunction ordering prison officials at CTF "to

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 96 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

comply with the Rules and Regulations that have been set in

place . . . for the processing and accepting [of] Petitioners [sic]

Legal Mail." (Id. at 4.) 

 A party seeking injunctive relief must show "a relationship

between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct

asserted in the complaint." Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471

(8th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff's requests are unrelated to the subject

of this action -- a claim of deliberate indifference to his safety

against prison officials at SVSP. Therefore, injunctive relief is

improper because his requests do not pertain to the issues as

framed by his first amended complaint and are sought against

persons who are not Defendants in this action. See Kaimowitz v.

Orlando, Fl., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523

U.S. 1138 (1998) ("a district court should not issue an injunction

when the injunction in question is not of the same character, and

deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit");

Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (prisoner's request for injunction against

retaliation for lawsuit was properly denied because not related to

medical care issue of complaint). Accordingly, his motions for

injunctive relief (docket nos. 58, 76) are DENIED.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has continued to prosecute this

action by filing multiple documents with the Court after he filed

his October 23, 2006 motion for injunctive relief. Furthermore, he

no longer complains of a lack of access to his legal property. 

Therefore, the Court assumes that Plaintiff's personal property and

legal materials were sent to him at CTF. If Plaintiff has not

received his property, he needs to direct his request to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California,

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 96 Filed 09/25/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.05\Brown1423.denyINJ.frm 4

rather than this Court, because KVSP in located in the Eastern

District.

The Court further notes that under either test outlined above,

there is no likelihood of success on the merits based on the

allegations in his May 1, 2007 motion for injunctive relief. The

opening of Plaintiff's mail from the Court and from Defendants did

not result in any actual injury to Plaintiff and, therefore, was

not a violation of his constitutional right of access to the

courts. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996),

amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (prison officials may open

and inspect mail to prisoner from courts outside prisoner's

presence because mail from courts, as opposed to mail from a

prisoner's lawyer, is not "legal mail"). Plaintiff has failed to

show a possibility of irreparable injury; therefore, his May 1,

2007 motion for injunctive relief is without merit.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (docket nos.

58, 76) are DENIED. The pending motions related to his May 1, 2007

motion for injunctive relief, including the motions to submit

declarations and exhibits (docket nos. 80, 85), are GRANTED.

2. This Order terminates Docket nos. 58, 76, 80 and 85.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/25/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 96 Filed 09/25/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.05\Brown1423.denyINJ.frm 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-01423 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 25, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Sara Ugaz

Attorney General's Office

Correctional Law Section

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

William Odessa Brown K-93463

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 705

Soledad, CA 93960-0705

Dated: September 25, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 96 Filed 09/25/07 Page 5 of 5