Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05092/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05092-10/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREVOR JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. HENSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 50)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. 44)

Plaintiff Trevor Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 5, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On February 1, 2006, after obtaining an extension of time,

plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO Document 57 Filed 03/21/06 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis. To “prevail on a

motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must

establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion

and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.” Lebron v.

Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003). Plaintiff

seeks a preliminary injunction for law library access. The

underlying claim alleges a deprivation of property. As explained

by the Magistrate Judge, preliminary injunctive relief is

designed to preserve the status quo regarding the substance of

the case; it is not available for the purpose of ensuring that

Plaintiff can effectively or efficiently litigate his case. As

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to redress an injury unrelated to the

underlying action, the preliminary injunction must be denied. 

In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that prisoners

have a right to bring to court their grievances. Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). This right is limited to

direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and civil

rights actions challenging conditions of confinement. Id. at

354-55. “An inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury

simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal

assistance program is sub-par in some theoretical sense.” Id. at

351. Rather, the inmate “must go one step further and

demonstrate that the library or legal assistance program hindered

his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. There is no right to

Case 1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO Document 57 Filed 03/21/06 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

27

28

3

“litigate effectively once in court.” Id. Thus, injunctive

relief requiring prison officials to assist Plaintiff in

litigating this action is not appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 5,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction

mandating access to his legal property, filed September 14, 2005,

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO Document 57 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 3