Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01975/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01975-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLOREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENYING REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 17)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Andrew R. Lopez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of

Obstructions to Court Access. An Exceptional Circumstance Warranting discretion for this court

to ask counsel to assist me. And OSC.” (Doc. #17.)

Plaintiff informs the Court that his law library access was obstructed because he was falsely

accused of abusing his library privileges. Plaintiff complains that the author of the report, R.

Rosenthal, was previously removed from his position in the library after a court warned the warden

to stop obstructing Plaintiff’s court access. Plaintiff also complains that Rosenthal is enforcing a

proposed policy, though Plaintiff provides no explanation of what the policywas or how it adversely

affected Plaintiff.

Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order requiring the warden at plaintiff’s prison to explain

“why Mr. R. Rosenthal was put back in the 4B SHU law library,” to “explain why [Plaintiff]

have[sic] not been afforded law library access,” and “explain why [the warden] is violating

California Government Code §§ 11340.5 and 11342 by enforcing ‘proposed’ regulations.” (Notice

1

Case 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 06/28/10 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

27

28

of Obstructions to Court Access 2, ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint

counsel for Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is requesting preliminary injunctive relief. The purpose of a preliminary injunction

is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice

requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately

determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “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 equities tips in his

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

“[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.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A

party seeking a preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported by

evidence. With respect to motions for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order,

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that:

[i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent

otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary

restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief.

Preliminary injunctive relief 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 that harm.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

The Court is reluctant to interfere with the day-to-day activities of prison administrators. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary

injunction. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence or argument to show that he is likely to succeed

on the merits of his claims, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the relief that

he seeks, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that the relief he seeks is in the public’s

interest. Accordingly, the Court will not grant the relief requested.

///

2

Case 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 06/28/10 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

27

28

Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not have a

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th

Cir. 1997). Further, the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.

296, 298 (1989). The Court does not have a reasonable method of securing and compensating

counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief be DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 3