Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01368/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01368-1/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

LIONELL E. THOLMER

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1368 GEB CMK PS

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, et al

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights action. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief

to prevent defendants from “violating his constitutional right to correspond with the courts

confidentially.” 

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief such as a

restraining order are well established. To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood

of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are

raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for

Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two

points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 10 Filed 04/27/05 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

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any 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.

A prisoner has no protected constitutional right to confidential communications

with the court. Indeed, all documents that plaintiff files with the court must be served on

defendants. See e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 5; Local Rule 5-135. Plaintiff, therefore, cannot make

the requisite showing of irreparable harm. 

IT IS SO ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 12, 2005 motion for emergency

injunctive relief is denied

DATED: April 25, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 10 Filed 04/27/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 10 Filed 04/27/05 Page 3 of 3