Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01189/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01189-10/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

CLIFTON JEROME MCDANIEL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:07cv1189-JAM-JFM (PC)

vs.

S. HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or

preliminary injunction.

In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff claims that Correctional Officers

Pham, Conchas and Young are denying plaintiff access to the law library, violating his right to

access to the courts. Plaintiff also claims that the librarian refused to provide plaintiff copies of

the instant motion because “the motion had nothing to do with his case.” (Motion at 4.) 

Plaintiff requests that the court order prison staff to allow plaintiff access to the law library. 

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either “(1) a likelihood of success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to

Case 2:07-cv-01189-JAM -JFM Document 45 Filed 07/21/08 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

2

the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor.” Oakland Tribune,

Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Apple Computer

Inc. v. Formula Int'l, 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984)); see also Hartikka v. United States, 754

F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale

with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at

1376. “Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a

significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible

irreparable harm, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

Here, plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing irreparable injury. An

inmate alleging a violation of his right of access to the courts must demonstrate that the conduct

of prison officials or shortcomings in the institution’s legal assistance program actually hindered

the inmate’s efforts to pursue a legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S. Ct.

2174, 2180 (1996). To state a claim that defendants interfered with the right of access to the

courts, an inmate must allege actual injury, i.e., a specific instance in which he was actually

denied access to the courts. See Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1994); Sands v.

Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In this regard, plaintiff has not made any showing that his ability to pursue this

court action has been hindered. For example, plaintiff’s motion contains numerous citations to

case authority in support of his arguments. Moreover, the docket reflects that plaintiff has met

all court deadlines and has filed eleven documents since the original complaint was filed on June

19, 2007. Defendants have also provided evidence that plaintiff has been provided regular access

to the law library, including 7 times in April, 4 times in May, 1 time in June and 2 times in July. 

(Opp’n, Ex. A.) In light of this record, plaintiff has not demonstrated that his right of access to

the courts is being impaired. 

Moreover, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named

as defendants in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are

Case 2:07-cv-01189-JAM -JFM Document 45 Filed 07/21/08 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

3

not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395

U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s June 9, 2008 motion for

temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

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.” 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). 

DATED: July 21, 2008.

/001; mcda1189.tro

Case 2:07-cv-01189-JAM -JFM Document 45 Filed 07/21/08 Page 3 of 3