Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00354/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00354-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

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

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time the case was filed, Plaintiff was a civil detainee. Plaintiff 

declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this matter was therefore referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for access to photocopying services, filed 

November 14, 2016. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order directing that he have access to 

photocopy services within the Fresno County Jail. 

I.

DISCUSSION

A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that 

would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. “A preliminary injunction 

... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for preserving the status quo and 

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COSBY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

A COURT ORDER DIRECTING ACCESS TO 

COPY SERVICES BE DENIED

[ECF Nos. 34, 35]

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 36 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

preventing the irreparable loss of right before judgment.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 

Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far 

reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. V. Tapeprinter, 

Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief 

requires a party to demonstrate ‘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.’” Stormans, Inc., v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 

2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). In cases brought by 

prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “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 the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 

U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 

F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he 

suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” 

Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) 

(internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis, 518 

U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 

A prisoner cannot submit conclusory declarations of injury by claiming his access to the courts 

has been impeded. Thus, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial of access without 

further elaboration. Plaintiff must demonstrate “actual injury” from the denial and/or delay of access. 

The Supreme Court has described the “actual injury” requirement:

[T]he inmate ... must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged 

shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a 

legal claim. He might show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed 

for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the 

prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. Or that he suffered 

arguably actionable harm that he wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied 

by inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a complaint.

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 36 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 3
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

In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate “actual injury” by the failure of 

access to photocopy services. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in the absence of 

preliminary injunctive relief he is likely to suffer actual injury in prosecuting his case. “Speculative 

injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” 

Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988), citing Goldies 

Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has provided no basis 

for this court to interfere with the jail’s administration of its access to photocopy services, and his 

requests for injunctive relief should be denied. 

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for access 

to photocopy services be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 

being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 36 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 3