Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00149-10/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

MICHAEL STEWART,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0149 FCD PAN P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Request for Order Prison

Officials to Assist or Transfer Plaintiff.” In that document, plaintiff alleges that prison officials

at Kern Valley State Prison have deprived him of access to his legal material and have interfered

with processing his mail to the court. The court construes this document as a request for

preliminary injunctive relief.

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief 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,

Case 2:03-cv-00149-FCD-EFB Document 82 Filed 08/30/06 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

 The court notes that the claims in this action arose while plaintiff was incarcerated at 1

High Desert State Prison, and all defendants are employees at High Desert. As a general rule, the

court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before

it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

2

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. 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.

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).

In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held

that prison inmates have a constitutionally protected right to access the courts to bring civil rights

actions to challenge their conditions of confinement and to bring challenges to their criminal

convictions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 351. The right of access to the courts “guarantees no

particular methodology but rather the conferral of a capability -- the capability of bringing

contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts.” Id. at 356. 

Under Lewis, prison officials violate this constitutional right to access the courts if, by their acts,

they prevent an inmate from bringing, or caused an inmate to lose, an actionable claim of this

type. Id. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the acts complained of have or will in any

cognizable way threaten his right of access to the courts. His request should therefore be denied.1

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00149-FCD-EFB Document 82 Filed 08/30/06 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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

June 12, 2006 request be construed as a request for preliminary injunction and, so construed, that

the request 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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: August 29, 2006.

12

stew0149.pi

Case 2:03-cv-00149-FCD-EFB Document 82 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 3