Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03753/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03753-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. L. MUNIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03753-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 20

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), where he is 

currently incarcerated. Plaintiff alleged that W.L. Muniz, Warden of SVSP, C. Martella, a staff 

services analyst at SVSP, S. Hatton, an associate warden of SVSP, and C. Barela, a correctional 

counselor at SVSP, retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights when they 

wrongly screened out (rejected at an early stage) or otherwise interfered with the processing of his 

prison grievances. The Court found that, liberally construed, the complaint stated a cognizable 

claim for retaliation and ordered service upon defendants. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a 

preliminary injunction. Defendants have filed an opposition, and plaintiff has filed a reply. For 

the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

In plaintiff’s motion, he requests a court order enjoining defendant staff services analyst C. 

Martella from handling, processing, or screening plaintiff’s inmate appeals. Plaintiff represents 

that, since filing this action, Martella continues her practice of improperly screening out or 

rejecting his inmate appeals.

“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. 

Brewer, et al., 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “A 

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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 

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 37 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

In order to succeed on a claim of retaliation, plaintiff must allege that: (1) a “state actor 

took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, 

and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the 

action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 

559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). At this time, a review of the evidence submitted 

does not show that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.

Nor does plaintiff show that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief. Plaintiff states that he bases his motion on inmate appeals nos. SVSP-L-15-70 

and SVSP-L-15-01611, which he represents were improperly screened out subsequent to filing the 

instant action. Defendants have established, however, that although these appeals were initially 

rejected by Martella, both were accepted for review after plaintiff corrected the deficiencies noted 

by Martella and resubmitted the appeals. Thus, the record shows that plaintiff still has access to 

the inmate grievance process, and as a result, the Court is not persuaded that he is likely to suffer 

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.

Having concluded that plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits 

at this stage of litigation or a likelihood of irreparable harm, the Court exercises its discretion in 

declining to consider the remaining factors relevant to determining whether a preliminary 

injunction should issue. See Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice.

This order terminates Docket No. 20.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/23/2015

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 37 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 2