Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00404/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00404-2/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

TRACY TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00404-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Docs. 5, 14)

Plaintiff TracyTaylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). Plaintiff has filed two motions for a preliminary

injunction. (Docs. #5, 14.) Plaintiff’s motions request that the Court order prison officials to allow

Plaintiff to possess tobacco in his cell because it is necessary for the practice of his religion. Plaintiff

has consented to jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Doc. #10.)

Plaintiff claims that he is a member of the “Thelema” religion and is required to use tobacco

products in his cell for a religious ceremony called the “wheel of love.” (Plaintiff[sic] Mot. for

Prelim. Inj. 7, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff claims that prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison

(“KVSP”) are depriving him of his right to practice his religion because it is KVSP’s policy “to force

Plaintiff to use only the vendors that have been approved by the department” to purchase tobacco,

but no vendors sell the “loose tobacco” that Plaintiff needs to exercise his religion due to laws that

prohibit the sale of tobacco to prisoners via mail. (Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 7, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff also

complains that prison rules prohibit Plaintiff from possessing tobacco in his cell and from possessing

1

Case 1:10-cv-00404-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 5
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

tobacco products on his person. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order requiring prison

officials to permit Plaintiff to possess tobacco in his cell and on his person and to permit Plaintiff

to receive tobacco sent to him by his friends and family outside the prison.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order 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 notes that Defendants have not been provided with notice of Plaintiff’s motion

because they have not yet been served and have not made an appearance in this action. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s motion is actually a motion for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 65(b), not a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a). Thus,

in addition to the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must also meet the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), which requires the movant to clearlyshow

2

Case 1:10-cv-00404-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 5
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

that immediate and irreparable injury would result before the adverse party can be heard in

opposition. Plaintiff is also required to certify in writing any efforts made to give Defendants notice

of the motion and provide the Court with reasons why notice should not be required. Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his efforts to provide

Defendants with notice of his motion and has not explained why such notice should not be required.

Further, Plaintiff has not made a clear showing that he is entitled to the reliefthat he requests. 

First, Plaintiff contends that in orderto obtain a preliminaryinjunction, he only needs to demonstrate

a “better than negligible chance of succeeding” on the merits of his claims. (Mot. for Prelim. Inj.

5, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff cites a Seventh Circuit case in support of his proposition, Cooper v. Salazar,

196 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court notes that in the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff is obligated

to demonstrate that he is "likely" to succeed on the merits of his claims – not a mere “better than

negligible chance of succeeding” on the merits. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he

is likely to succeed on the merits”); National Meat Association v. Brown, 577 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th

Cir. 2010) (“Someone seeking a preliminaryinjunctionmust demonstrate ‘that he is likelyto succeed

on the merits. . . .’”) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the

merits of his claims. Plaintiff is unable to cite to any case that can be analogized to the facts in his

claims. Plaintiff provides little argument regarding his likelihood of success. Plaintiff only states

that his religion requires him to use tobacco products in his cell and that he is unable to obtain the

necessary tobacco products because he cannot order them via mail and he cannot possess the

necessary tobacco products because the prison prohibits its possession in Plaintiff’s cell. It is not

entirely clear why Plaintiff needs to have possession of his tobacco in his cell or on his person, as

opposed to performing the designated religious services in the prison’s chapel. Plaintiff indicates

that the prison allows tobacco to be used for religious ceremonies in the prison’s chapel. Plaintiff’s

allegations are also confusing as Plaintiff claims that no vendors will mail tobacco to the prison, yet

also alleges that on numerous occasions prison officials rejected packages containing tobacco that

came from vendors. 

3

Case 1:10-cv-00404-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 5
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 claims that a state court issued an order that found that prison officials violated

the First Amendment and the RLUIPA and ordered the prison officials to permit Plaintiff to possess

tobacco and receive it from friends and family. Notably, Plaintiff has not attached copies of the state

court’s order to his complaint or to his motion for a preliminary injunction. In the absence of such

evidence, it is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which a state court would be making such

decisions grounded in federal law.1

The Court also notes that it is difficult to evaluate the balance of the equities because

Defendants did not have the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s motions. However, the relief

requested by Plaintiff will likely impose a substantial burden on Defendants. Plaintiff’s request for

an exemption from the tobacco possession rule will likely burden the administration of the prison

and the regulation of contraband within the prison as it would require prison officials to educate

correctional officers about Plaintiff’s exclusive exception and to monitor Plaintiff’s possession to

prevent the distribution of the tobacco to other inmates. Plaintiff also requests permission to allow

friends and family to send Plaintiff tobacco, which would require prison officials to undertake the

burden of inspecting Plaintiff’s incoming mail and somehow screen the loose tobacco to ensure that

it does not contain any other contraband or illegal substances. Although Plaintiff may suffer

irreparable injury because he is unable to practice his religion, the burden on Defendants would also

be substantial and the Court cannot conclude that it would be appropriate to grant Plaintiff the relief

requested before providing Defendants with the opportunity to be heard.

///

///

Plaintiff has attached an exhibit to his complaint that is allegedly a letter from the warden acknowledging

1

the Sacramento Superior Court’s order requiring prison officials to permit Plaintiff to use tobacco products. (Am.

Compl. Ex. 3, ECF No. 13.) The authenticity of this memorandum is questionable, as it is rife with spelling and

grammatical errors and typewritten on plain white paper, as opposed to official prison or California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation letterhead. Additionally, the memorandum is addressed only to Plaintiff and not to

any correctional officers or prison officials. It is unlikely that the warden sent a memorandum exclusively to Plaintiff

and not to any other prison officials regarding Plaintiff’s authorization to use tobacco products. Further, the

Sacramento Superior Court case number referenced in the memorandum, 05F03930, does not refer to any case

involving Plaintiff.

4

Case 1:10-cv-00404-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 07/30/10 Page 4 of 5
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

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary

injunction/temporary restraining order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:10-cv-00404-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 07/30/10 Page 5 of 5