Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01605/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01605-7/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

- 1 - 07cv1605

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY J. WAYNE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07 CV 1605 JM (BLM)

ORDER DENYING IN PART

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Doc. No. 72

vs.

O. LEAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 13, 2007. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was filed October 7,

2008 and subsequently served on the remaining parties. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff also submitted a

motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), which was filed nunc pro tunc to January 2, 2008.

In his motion, Plaintiff asked the court to order defendants to allow him psychotropic and pain

medications ordered by facility medical staff. (Doc. No. 72 at 2.) The court denied this request by

order dated January 12, 2009. (Doc. No. 73.) In the TRO request, Plaintiff also asked the court to

restrain defendants from interfering with his access to the courts. (Doc. No. 72 at 2.) On the latter

issue, Defendants submitted a response as requested by the court. (Doc. No. 78.)

As a first consideration, although the remedies sought in Plaintiff’s TRO relate to his ability

to prosecute his § 1983 claims, he has not established “a relationship between the injury claimed in

the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.” E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores

Case 3:07-cv-01605-JM-BLM Document 83 Filed 01/23/09 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

27

28

1

As Defendants note, Plaintiff has no absolute right to access to a law library, legal supplies,

lawyers, or inmate assistance but must show the alleged deprivations unreasonably denied him access

to the courts and caused actual harm. (Doc. No. 78 at 3-6.)

- 2 - 07cv1605

S.A., 440 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1138 (E.D.Cal. 2006). Absent such a nexus, the court lacks jurisdiction

to address the matters raised in a TRO request. See Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719,

727 (9th Cir. 1985).

In addition to the jurisdictional bar, Plaintiff has failed to meet the requisite legal standards

for preliminary injunctive relief, which, in the Ninth Circuit, also apply to TROs. See, e.g., Superior

Servs., Inc. v. Dalton, 851 F. Supp. 381, 384-85 (S.D. Cal. 1994). Preliminary injunctive relief is

available if the party meets one of two tests: (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility

of irreparable harm; or (2) the party raises serious questions and the balance of hardship tips in its

favor. Arcamuzi v. Cont’l Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). “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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under both

formulations, however, the party must demonstrate a “fair chance of success on the merits, or

questions serious enough to require litigation,” and a “significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id.;

see also Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994) (party seeking preliminary

injunction must demonstrate inadequacy of legal remedies).

To succeed on the merits of Plaintiff’s access to the courts allegation, he must show: 1) he was

unreasonably denied access to the courts; and 2) he suffered an actual injury as a result. See Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994). Even if

Plaintiff could show denial of access to the law library, confiscation of legal supplies, or failure to

provide free legal supplies were unreasonable,1

 he can not demonstrate any actual injury. Since his

suspension from the law library on December 10, 2008, Plaintiff has filed no fewer than five

submissions with this court and has missed no filing deadlines. Several of Plaintiff’s submissions,

including the pending TRO, were filed after his access to legal supplies was limited. Further,

especially given Plaintiff’s pending March 6, 2009 release from prison, at this time Plaintiff can make

no showing of irreparable harm. If Plaintiff is concerned he would be unable to respond to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 68) while he remains incarcerated, he is free to seek an

Case 3:07-cv-01605-JM-BLM Document 83 Filed 01/23/09 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

27

28

- 3 - 07cv1605

extension of time to respond to the motion.

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s request for TRO regarding denial of access to the

courts is DENIED. (Doc. No. 72.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01605-JM-BLM Document 83 Filed 01/23/09 Page 3 of 3