Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01777/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01777-8/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

 Plaintiff’s motion is styled a motion for preliminary and/or permanent injunction and 1

for temporary restraining order and/or declaratory judgment.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NYLES LAWAYNE WATSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1777 DFL PAN P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff 1

seeks an order requiring prison officials to provide him with additional access to the prison law

library. On September 7, 2005, defendants filed an opposition to the 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

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

Case 2:02-cv-01777-JKS-EFB Document 186 Filed 06/16/06 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

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 the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Plaintiff’s motion implicates his constitutional right to access the courts. In Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that prison inmates have a

constitutionally protected right to access the courts to bring civil rights actions to challenge their

conditions of confinement and to bring challenges to their criminal convictions. Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. at 351. The right of access to the courts “guarantees no particular methodology but

rather the conferral of a capability -- the capability of bringing contemplated challenges to

sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts.” Id. at 356. To obtain injunctive

relief, plaintiff must show, at a minimum, that the alleged limitations on his access to the prison

law library will prevent him from bringing, or caused him to lose, an actionable claim of this

type. Id. 

The record before this court shows that plaintiff has been able to respond timely to

court orders filed herein as well as to defendants’ subsequently filed motion for summary

judgment. Plaintiff has made no showing that the alleged limits on his access to the prison law

library threaten in any cognizable way his ability to litigate this action. This court finds that

plaintiff has not shown a significant threat of irreparable injury to his constitutional right to

access the courts.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01777-JKS-EFB Document 186 Filed 06/16/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s September 6,

2005 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

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: June 15, 2006.

12

wats1777.pi

Case 2:02-cv-01777-JKS-EFB Document 186 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 3