Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00945/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00945-7/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

NAKIA MCCLAIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00945-OWW-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

and

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME

(Doc. 45)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Nakia McClain (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a motion for an extension of time. (Doc. #45.) Plaintiff’s motion also requests preliminary

injunctive relief. Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants’ attorney to assist Plaintiff in gaining

access to the prison’s law library. Defendants filed an opposition on June 3, 2010 and an amended

opposition on June 15, 2010. (Docs. #47, 48.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply to Defendants’

opposition.

I. Discussion

Plaintiff requests a thirty (30) day extension of the discovery deadline. The Court’s May 5,

2009 discovery/scheduling order set a discovery cut-off date of January 4, 2010. (Doc. #29.)

The Court later granted an extension of time for conducting discovery and extended the cut-off date

1

Case 1:07-cv-00945-JLT Document 49 Filed 06/28/10 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

27

28

to June 30, 2010. (Doc. #44.)

Plaintiff’s only argument in support of his request for an extension of time is that he is being

denied access to the prison law library because “it is the prison officials[sic] position that . . . inmates

seeking discovery and or responding to discovery requests do not need access to the prison law

library.” (Pls.’[sic] Second Request for Enlargement of Time Pursuant to Rule 6(b), Fed. R. Civ.

P. 2, ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff provides no explanation as to what discovery request(s) he is preparing,

or to what discovery request(s) he is responding. Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why he

needs access to the prison law library other than the vague explanation that the library “provides

paging for legal case citations and not for legal materials and/or supplies.” (Req. for Enlargement

of Time 2, ECF No. 45.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff has been given “Preferred Legal User”

status and that Plaintiff was given law library access on June 1, 2010, June 7, 2010, and June 14,

2010. (Am. Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Request for an Enlargement of Time 2:2-4, ECF No. 48.)

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time. Plaintiff has not set forth

persuasive arguments in support of his request for an extension of time. Plaintiff has not clearly

identified why he needs an extension of time to conduct discovery. Plaintiff has not indicated that

he is preparing any discovery requests or responses to any discovery requests. Further, Plaintiff has

not provided an adequate explanation as to why he was unable to prepare his requests or responses

before the June 30, 2010 deadline for conducting discovery. The Court notes that the discovery

deadline has already been extended nearly six (6) months past the original deadline.

The Court will also recommend that Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief be

denied. Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants’ attorney to assist Plaintiff with gaining access

to the prison law library. 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).

2

Case 1:07-cv-00945-JLT Document 49 Filed 06/28/10 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

27

28

“[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 finds that Plaintiff has offered no argument or evidence in support of his request

for a preliminary injunction to assist him with gaining law library access. Plaintiff has made no

effort to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case, is likely to suffer

irreparable harm in the absence of the Court’s intervention, that the balance of equities are in his

favor, or that the relief requested would be in the public’s interest. The Court will recommend that

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be denied.

II. Conclusion

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any persuasive arguments that would

justify an extension of the discovery deadline or granting him preliminary injunctive relief.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is

DENIED.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for preliminaryinjunctive

relief 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

3

Case 1:07-cv-00945-JLT Document 49 Filed 06/28/10 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

27

28

“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

4

Case 1:07-cv-00945-JLT Document 49 Filed 06/28/10 Page 4 of 4