Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02443/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02443-5/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

MARLIN PENN,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-2443 JFM

vs.

WARDEN MCDONALD, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 16, 2009, plaintiff filed a document

entitled “Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief and Restraining Order.” The court construes

this as a request for temporary restraining order. On January 19, 2010, defendants filed an

opposition. 

Plaintiff alleges his legal and regular mail have been deliberately delayed or

destroyed by the mail room sergeant on duty, defendant M. Keating, and/or his mailroom staff,

in retaliation for plaintiff’s filing of the present section 1983 civil suit. In support of his

allegation, plaintiff asserts he has been awaiting declarations from his attorney, Charolette

Ransom, and his mother, E.M. Snipes. Plaintiff declares that his mother’s declaration was

mailed on December 1, 2009 and December 2, 2009, but that they were not delivered to plaintiff

until December 30, 2009. As of the time of the filing of his motion, plaintiff was not aware as to

whether his attorney had yet mailed her declaration. 

Case 2:09-cv-02443-KJM -JFM Document 32 Filed 02/18/10 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

2

In response, defendants presented logs of plaintiff’s legal mail, which show that

he has sent and received at least ten documents during December 2009. Because a letter from

plaintiff’s mother is not legal mail, defendants assert it is impossible to track when this type of

mail arrived. Furthermore, defendants claim Sergeant Keating has not worked at the institution

since October 2, 2009. 

The legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to

demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374

(2008). 

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 the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Prisoners may not be retaliated against for exercising their First Amendment right

of access to the courts or their broader right to petition the government for redress of grievances. 

Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995); Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461

(9th Cir. 1995); Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 1989). An inmate

alleging a violation of his right of access to the courts must demonstrate that the conduct of

prison officials or shortcomings in the institution’s legal assistance program actually hindered

the inmate’s efforts to pursue a legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S. Ct.

2174, 2180 (1996). To state a claim that defendants interfered with the right of access to the

courts, an inmate must allege actual injury, i.e., a specific instance in which he was actually

denied access to the courts. See Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1994); Sands v.

Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). 

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02443-KJM -JFM Document 32 Filed 02/18/10 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

Further, retaliation by a state employee for a prisoner’s exercise of a

constitutional right is actionable under § 1983, even if the acts, when taken for different reasons,

would have been proper. Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1977). 

To state a retaliation claim, however, a prisoner must allege facts showing that the retaliatory act

occurred in response to the prisoner’s exercise of a constitutional right and that retaliation was a

substantial or motivating factor for the defendant’s acts or conduct. 429 U.S. at 285-87. See

also Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314-16 (9th Cir. 1989). The prisoner

must also allege facts showing that the defendant’s retaliatory action did not advance legitimate

penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and discipline. Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994); Rizzo v.

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985).

Here, plaintiff has not made the requisite showing that defendant’s actions

hindered his access to the courts. The docket reflects that plaintiff has met all court deadlines

and has filed fourteen documents since the original complaint was filed on August 31, 2009. 

Further, the court notes that plaintiff relies solely upon the declaration of his mother; he has not

presented any evidence that his attorney sent or that he received her declaration; and the named

defendant against whom he brings this motion has not worked at the facility since October 2009. 

Even assuming plaintiff’s mail was delayed, plaintiff has not shown that retaliation was the

“substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the mail room staff’s conduct. See Soranno’s, 874

F.2d at 1314. 

Lastly, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as

defendants in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not

parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S.

100, 112 (1969).

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied.

Case 2:09-cv-02443-KJM -JFM Document 32 Filed 02/18/10 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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district

judge to this matter; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s December 16, 2009 “Request

for Immediate Injunctive Relief and Restraining Order” 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

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.” 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: February 16, 2010

/014; penn2243.tro

Case 2:09-cv-02443-KJM -JFM Document 32 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 4