Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00306-19/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

PAUL ERIC HEBBE

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-0306 EFB P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for trial on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, on plaintiff’s

claim that defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by denying him outdoor

exercise for an extended period of time during a lockdown. On August 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a

request for a preliminary injunction. He seeks an order directing that he be provided additional

time in the law library in order to prepare documents he must submit before trial, i.e., a trial

brief, motions in limine, proposed jury instructions and a proposed verdict form. For the reasons

explained below, the court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

A preliminary injunction will not issue unless necessary because threatened injury would

impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. 

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB Document 136 Filed 09/19/07 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

F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a very far reaching 

power never to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter,

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). The Ninth Circuit standards for preliminary injunctive

relief are well established:

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve rights

pending resolution of the merits of the case by the trial.” Big

Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 868 F.2d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir.

1989). A preliminary injunction is appropriate “where plaintiffs

demonstrate either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and

the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips

sharply in their favor.” Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v.

Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) Shelley, 344

F.3d at 917 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The

irreducible minimum is that the moving party demonstrate a fair

chance of success on the merits or questions serious enough to

require litigation. No chance of success at all will not suffice.” 

Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753

(9th Cir. 1982) (internal punctuation and citations omitted).

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A. , 446 F.3d 984, 990 (9th Cir. 2006). If the balance

of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a

likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly. Benda v. Grand

Lodge of the International Association of Machinists, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1978). The

threatened injury must be immediate. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. National

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). And since the remedy is equitable in

nature, there must be no adequate remedy at law. Stanley v. University of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313,

1320 (9th Cir. 1994). If the relief sought is mandatory rather than prohibitory, the balance must

more clearly favor the applicant. Dahl v. HEM Pharm. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993).

As noted, plaintiff moves for an order directing that he be permitted additional time in the

law library in order to submit documents necessary for trial. It appears, however that plaintiff’s

motion is moot. A matter is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 

(1969). Plaintiff asserts that his time in the law library has been decreased from about 13 hours

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB Document 136 Filed 09/19/07 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

per week to about 8 hours per week. He contends that this time is insufficient to prepare a trial

brief, proposed verdict forms, proposed jury instructions and motions in limine. However, on

September 7, 2007, plaintiff submitted a six-page motion in limine, a five-page motion to expand

his list of exhibits for trial, a ten-page trial brief and about 140 pages of proposed jury

instructions and verdict forms. Accordingly, to continue pursuing this motion, plaintiff must

allege the condition is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365,

1368 (9th Cir. 1995). He may do this by showing that the challenged action is of a duration too

short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation and there is a reasonable expectation that the same

complaining party will be subjected to the same action again. Wiggins v. Rushen, 760 F.2d

1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 1985). However, even if plaintiff clears this hurdle, he must show that he is

in immediate danger of irreparable harm. This he cannot do because he has in fact filed several

documents in anticipation of trial. He has not shown that his time in the law library was

inadequate, and therefore has not suffered irreparable injury.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff’s August 8, 2007, motion is denied.

Dated: September 18, 2007.

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB Document 136 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3