Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02466/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02466-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OBIE LEE CRISP, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRIAN DUFFY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2: 15-cv-2466 KJN P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s May 2, 2016 motion for injunctive 

relief. For the following reasons, this motion is denied. 

 This action is proceeding on the original complaint against defendants Warden Duffy and 

Chief Medical Officer Clark. Plaintiff alleges that on October 12, 2015, he was assaulted by 

inmate Weber. Plaintiff alleges that prior to the assault, inmate Weber had mental health problem 

that involved acting aggressively. Plaintiff alleges that due to understaffing, inmate Weber had 

not been properly monitored. Plaintiff alleges that inadequate staffing caused the attack by 

inmate Weber. 

In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests that the court issue an order 

prohibiting prison officials from removing plaintiff’s legal materials from his cell. It appears that 

plaintiff is alleging that he has been told by prison officials that some of his legal materials must 

Case 2:15-cv-02466-KJN Document 23 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

be placed in storage. Plaintiff alleges that many prisoners have complained about the loss of their 

property placed in storage. Plaintiff also complains that he has been harassed by Officer Beltram. 

Plaintiff alleges that it is likely that Officer Beltram or one of his “buddies” will “sabotage” 

plaintiff’s legal exhibits. 

 The undersigned construes plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief as a motion for a 

protective order. Clearly, plaintiff's motion does not seek dispositive relief on the merits of the 

complaint. The motion is instead addressed to procedures that the parties must utilize in litigating 

this case. See United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 586 (1st Cir. 1981) (“A pretrial matter 

within the magistrate's jurisdiction would thus seem to be a matter unconnected to issues litigated 

at trial and not defined with respect to the time of trial.” ) 

 It seems likely that prison officials have requested that plaintiff put some of his legal 

materials in storage because the amount of legal materials in plaintiff’s cell exceeds the amount 

allowed by prison regulations. Plaintiff does not allege that prison officials have lost any of his 

legal materials previously placed in storage. At this point in time, plaintiff’s concerns regarding 

storing his legal materials are speculative. The court gives wide deference to prison 

administrators in the day-to-day operations of a prison facility. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 

(1979.) For these reasons, plaintiff’s request for an order prohibiting prison officials from placing 

his legal materials in storage is denied. 

 Plaintiff’s claim that Officer Beltram is likely to “sabotage” his legal exhibits is similarly 

speculative. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts demonstrating that Officer Beltram poses a 

threat to his ability to litigate the instant action. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREB ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF 

No. 21), construed as a request for a protective order, is denied. 

Dated: May 18, 2016 

Cr2466.inj 

kc

Case 2:15-cv-02466-KJN Document 23 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 2