Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02645/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02645-20/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

GREGORY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-02645 ALA P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff Gregory Brown is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against prison officials at the California

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”). Plaintiff claims those officials are providing

Plaintiff with inadequate access to the law library. 

On December 19, 2007, Defendants Alameida, Alexander, Bainbridge, Brewer, T. Cole,

Davey, Feliciano, Felker, Fiegener, Harrison, Hibbits, Jackson, Johnson, Kopec, Leighton,

Lucas, Lynn, Malfi, Martin, Norlin, Quiggle, Rianda, Runnels, Surges, Weeks and Wright filed

an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion arguing that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because none

of those defendants are employees of CSATF. On January 8, 2008, Defendant Rohlfling filed a

response to the court’s December 5, 2007, order stating that Defendant Rohlfling is not an

Case 2:02-cv-02645-ALA Document 130 Filed 01/14/08 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

2

employee of CSATF and therefore cannot respond to Plaintiff’s allegations. 

A court may only enjoin the actions of parties or non-parties with notice who are shown

to be in active participation with defendants. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Plaintiff has not alleged that the staff at CSATF are in active

participation with Defendants. Plaintiff’s request will therefore be denied. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 29, 2007, motion for a temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction is DENIED; and

2. Defendant Rohlfing’s January 8, 2008, filing satisfies the court’s December 8,

2007, order. 

///// 

DATED: January 14, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:02-cv-02645-ALA Document 130 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 2