Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03300/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03300-1/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

TAHEE ABD’ RASHEED

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3300 KJM P

vs.

CASTRO, et al.

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. He has filed a motion for injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants named in the

complaint “continue to deny plaintiff access to his money in his trust account, canteen, religious

books and to support his family and pay court filing fees....” Mot. at 2 (Docket No. 5). The

motion also suggests that defendants are “denying plaintiff equal public accommodations” and

access to medical care. Id. at 3.

Injunctive relief ordinarily takes the form of a temporary restraining order or a

preliminary injunction. The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order often is to preserve

the status quo pending a fuller hearing. However, when a party seeks a mandatory injunction,

which “goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo,” the party must show that the facts

/////

Case 2:09-cv-03300-KJM Document 7 Filed 01/28/10 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

and the law clearly favor his position. Stanley v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d

1313, 1320 (9th Cir.1994). 

The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a temporary

restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the hearing on

a preliminary injunction. It is apparent however, that requests for temporary restraining orders

which are ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general standards that govern

the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434

U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist.

Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); Century Time Ltd. v.

Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the emphasis of the

court is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the merits of a

controversy are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice.

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,

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. 

Plaintiff does not specify whether he seeks a temporary restraining order, a

preliminary injunction, or both. Under either category, however, his motion does not state a

basis for granting injunctive relief. The allegation that prison officials are denying him access to

money in his prison trust account, even if true, does not suggest the existence of irreparable

Case 2:09-cv-03300-KJM Document 7 Filed 01/28/10 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

1

 Plaintiff has made the same allegation in his civil rights complaint, wherein he seeks an

order that “defendants return money illegally seized from him and have all monies placed... into

plaintiff’s account.” Complaint at 5 (Docket No. 1). In this order, the court expresses no

opinion on the merit or availability of the monetary relief that plaintiff seeks in his complaint.

3

injury.1 Furthermore, in making the allegation that defendants are depriving him of equal

accommodations and access to medical treatment, plaintiff is not specific as to the nature of any

disability or serious medical need. He is also not specific about the “religious books” that he

mentions only in passing at the beginning of his motion. The motion is therefore too vague and

does not give the court any basis on which to determine that a threat of irreparable injury exists. 

Since the burden to show that threat is a heavy one and placed on the plaintiff, the court

concludes that the motion must be denied.

Finally, the court notes that plaintiff has submitted an affidavit regarding the

court’s earlier order that plaintiff must complete a sworn application concerning his prison trust

account if he wishes to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff states in his affidavit that he spoke

to his correctional counselor about deducting the full filing fee of $350.00 from his prison

account, but the correctional officer gave him a document showing that the balance of the

account is zero. Plaintiff states that “I refused to mail the original statement to the courts

because it would have been an act of fraud to declare under penalty of perjury that I don’t have

any money, when in fact I do have money because I have won over three lawsuits since 1999 and

have not been permitted to spend a dime of that money.” Pl.’s Aff. at 1 (Docket No. 6). The

court appreciates plaintiff’s effort to maintain full candor with the court, but on this issue

plaintiff is mistaken as to the manner of proof necessary for him to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The question is not how much money plaintiff believes ought to be in his prison trust account;

the question is how much money the prison has recorded to have been in the account over the

last six months. Documentation of the contents and history of the account, certified by the

prison, will not impugn plaintiff’s credibility regarding how much money should be in the

account, nor can such documentation stand as a misrepresentation by plaintiff about the account. 

Case 2:09-cv-03300-KJM Document 7 Filed 01/28/10 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

Moreover, plaintiff has, with the submission of his affidavit, made it abundantly clear that he

disagrees with the recorded account balance of zero. His objection is now preserved for the

record, but the court will require proper documentation of his prison trust account as required by

statute. 

Plaintiff therefore has two options: (1) pay the filing fee of $350.00, regardless of

the current balance statement of his prison trust account, or (2) submit a completed application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Should plaintiff choose the latter, the certificate portion of the

application must be completed by plaintiff’s institution of incarceration and signed by an

authorized prison official. Also, plaintiff must file a certified copy of his prison trust account

statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion for injunctive relief (Docket No. 5) is denied;

2. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, the full

filing fee of $350.00 or a completed affidavit and trust account statement in support of his

request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner; and

4. If plaintiff chooses to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff shall submit, within

thirty days from the date of this order, a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for

the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without

prejudice.

DATED: January 27, 2010. 

4

rash3300.47+3c+new

Case 2:09-cv-03300-KJM Document 7 Filed 01/28/10 Page 4 of 4