Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02747/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02747-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed Ryan, Adu-Tutu, Phen, Chitwood,

Thunderwood, Kenter, and John Doe Food Service Canteen Manager as Defendants (Doc.

35).

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Steven Parker,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Adu-Tutu, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2747-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Mark Steven Parker brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Dr. Rowe, an Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Facility Health

Administrator (Doc. 26).1

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel for Photocopying

Services (Doc. 111), which Defendant opposes (Doc. 113).

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement at the Arizona State Prison Complex

in Florence, Arizona (Doc. 26 at 1). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was deliberately

indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need when he repeatedly denied other physician’s

requests to provide Plaintiff a medically prescribed vegetarian diet for his chronic gout (id.

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 126 Filed 08/02/12 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

2

Plaintiff’s claims are set forth in Counts II, III, and VIII (Doc. 26). The Court

dismissed all other Counts except Count I; however, the only named Defendant in Count I

was a Doe Defendant, and the Court did not direct service on the Doe Defendant (id.; Doc.

35 at 7). 

- 2 -

at 7, 9-11, 20; Doc. 35).2

Plaintiff now moves for injunctive relief in the form of an Order directing the

paralegal at the Kingman facility where is he housed to provide photocopy services for all

motions, including change-of-address notices (Doc. 111 at 1). Plaintiff asserts that the

paralegal and prison officials have refused to provide such services (id.). Plaintiff submits

the copy of a notice from the Office of the Clerk of the District Court for the District of

Arizona, which informs Plaintiff that Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.4 requires him to

submit an original document, a copy for the judge, and a second copy if Plaintiff desires a

stamped copy returned to him (id., Ex. A1). Plaintiff also submits the copy of his April 23,

2012 form requesting copies of a Notice of Change of Address and two other documents,

which are illegible (id., Ex. A2). The paralegal’s response to the copy request indicates that

the requested documents are “non-qualified . . . non-legal matter” and no copies were

provided to Plaintiff (id.). Plaintiff contends that the ability to copy legal documents is

critical and the denial of copies could result in tangible harm (Doc. 111 at 2).

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion, and argues that Plaintiff fails to satisfy the

elements for a preliminary injunction—that he is likely to prevail on the merits or suffer

irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the

public interest (Doc. 113 at 4). According to Defendant, ADC policy regulates legal copies,

and the policy differentiates between “qualified” and “non-qualified” legal copying claims

(id., citing Ex. A, Department Order (DO) 902). Under this policy, qualified legal claims

relate to direct appeals, Post Conviction Relief proceedings, and, in federal court, any claim

based on an alleged violation of the Constitution or federal law (id. at 4-5). Defendant states

that the policy requires paralegals to review all copy requests to determine whether they

concern a qualified legal claim (id. at 5). Defendant explains that charges apply for both

types of legal copies; however, if an inmate does not have funds to pay for non-qualified

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 126 Filed 08/02/12 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

- 3 -

legal copying, copies are denied (id., Ex. A, DO 902.07 § 1.1). But if an inmate does not

have funds to pay for qualified legal copying, copies are still provided and the inmate’s

account is placed on hold until the debt is paid (id., DO 902.06 § 1.1). 

Defendant argues that although Plaintiff has a right of access to the courts, he does not

have a right to free and unlimited photocopying (id. at 5). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has

shown just one instance when he was denied photocopies, and, although the reason for the

April 23, 2012 denial is unexplained, Plaintiff has not shown that he has been consistently

denied copies or denied access to the court (id. at 5-6). 

Plaintiff did not file a reply.

II. Governing Standards

A. Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” that may be granted only where

the movant shows 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 Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The movant has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Envtl.

Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).

Under the “serious questions” version of the sliding-scale test, a preliminary

injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates that “serious questions going to the

merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [plaintiff’s] favor.” Alliance

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lands

Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). This approach requires

that the elements of the preliminary injunction test be balanced, so that a stronger showing

of one element may offset a weaker showing of another. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies,

632 at 1135.

Regardless of which test is applied, there is a heightened burden where a plaintiff

seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction, which should not be granted “unless the facts and

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 126 Filed 08/02/12 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

- 4 -

law clearly favor the plaintiff.” Comm. of Cent. Am. Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434,

1441 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act imposes additional requirements on prisoner

litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials and requires that any

injunctive relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999

(9th Cir. 2000).

B. Access to the Courts

Generally, an injunction should not issue if it “is not of the same character, and deals

with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d

41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997). But if the request for relief concerns the prisoner’s access to the

courts, “a nexus between the preliminary relief and the ultimate relief sought is not required.”

Prince v. Schriro, et al., 2009 WL 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009), citing

Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430

U.S. 817, 821 (1977). The right of access to the courts, however, is only a right to bring

petitions or complaints to the federal court and not a right to discover such claims or even

to litigate them effectively once filed with a court. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354

(1996); see also Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995). To maintain an

access-to-the-courts claim, an inmate must submit evidence showing an “actual injury”

resulting from the defendant’s actions. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. With respect to an

existing case, the actual injury must be “actual prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a

filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348-49. 

III. Analysis

Because Plaintiff’s pending motion relates to his ability to obtain legal copies, i.e. his

access to the court, the Court may consider his request for injunctive relief. See

Diamontiney, 918 F.2d at 796 (where the preliminary injunction concerns the movant’s

access to the court, the merits of the underlying suit need not be considered).

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 126 Filed 08/02/12 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

- 5 -

It may be possible that an arbitrary refusal to provide photocopies could lead to a

finding of denial of access to the courts. See Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 1508 (9th Cir.

1991) (arbitrarily denying access to a prison library could constitute a violation of the right

of access to the courts, even if the regulations governing library access were arguably facially

valid). Still, there must be a showing of actual injury, and the Court finds that Plaintiff has

not shown actual injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. Plaintiff does not allege what, if any,

harm he suffered as a result of the paralegal’s refusal to deny him copies on April 23, 2012.

Plaintiff does not allege that this denial caused him to miss a deadline, nor does he allege that

he has been denied copies any other time. The docket reflects that Plaintiff has not been

denied access to the Court; rather, he has been able to submit numerous filings since the

April 23, 2012 incident (see Docs. 108, 110-111, 115, 117). And, although it may be

inconvenient, Plaintiff may always make handwritten copies of his motions or addresschange notices.

Finally, as noted by Defendant, in addition to failing to demonstrate actual or

irreparable injury, Plaintiff does not address any of the other requirements that must be

shown to warrant injunctive relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 

For these reasons, an injunction is not warranted, and Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied.

IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel for Photocopying Services (Doc. 111), and the Motion is

denied.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2012.

 

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 126 Filed 08/02/12 Page 5 of 5