Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00406-0/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

WO SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stephen Frank Karban, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al.,

Defendants 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0406-TUC-DCB

ORDER

Plaintiff Stephen Frank Karban brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff moves for a Preliminary Injunction directing Defendants to cease interfering with

Plaintiff’s incoming legal research material. (Doc. 14.) Defendants do not respond but the

Court finds that no response is necessary. 

The Court will deny the motion. 

I. Background

 In Count I, Plaintiff claimed that his First Amendment rights were violated by

Defendants Williams, Barry, and Jane and/or John Doe, when they, as employees of the

Arizona Department of corrections (ADC) at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson Mail

Room, “deliberately lost, returned, withheld and/or refused to deliver to the Plaintiff, his

incoming legal case law, sent via priority U.S. Mail.” (Doc. 1.) The Court directed Williams

and Barry to answer these allegations. (Doc. 11.) The Court also directed other Defendants

to answer additional counts not at issue here and dismissed some claims and Defendants.

(Id.)

Case 4:10-cv-00406-DCB Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Plaintiff now asks the Court to direct Defendants to cease interfering with his

incoming legal research material. (Doc. 14 at 1.) He claims that this would not require

extraordinary Court intervention other than to require Defendants to follow the established

mail policy, Department Order (DO) 914. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff alleges that since arriving at the Winchester Unit, he has had continuing

issues regarding mishandling of priority legal research materials. (Id. at 2.) The case law

is being sent from Yolanda Berg, who Plaintiff describes as a “single independent source

with online access to legal research material.” (Id.) Plaintiff uses a delivery confirmation

option to verify that materials arrived at the prison and to determine when they arrived; this

option costs more money. (Id.) 

Plaintiff asserts that DO 914 details what inmates cannot receive and directs prison

staff what to do if prohibited mail is sent and that it establishes time frames for mail

deliveries. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that two priority boxes of legal research “vanished” in October. (Id.

at 3.) An envelope was returned to Ms. Berg marked “Can’t send score keeping and multiple

sheets of blank paper to inmate. Inmates get paper from facility only.” Plaintiff asserts that

the books did not contain blank paper or score keeping paper; rather, there were multiple

forms used to analyze trial transcripts to determine how trial objections were ruled upon.

(Id.) 

Plaintiff also alleges that mail is to be distributed within 24 hours, with an exception

if the mail is detrimental to the safe and secure operation of the institution. Plaintiff asserts

that his research material does not qualify for rejection. Also, Plaintiff is to be notified when

unauthorized mail is received. Plaintiff alleges that he received only one such notification

when something was returned in January because it contained “case law other than addressed

inmate.” (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff claims that non-intervention will effect the litigation of Plaintiff’s criminal

and civil cases. (Id.) He contends that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim

because his evidence shows that the priority mail reached the prison. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff

Case 4:10-cv-00406-DCB Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

asserts that under the mail policy, he is entitled to receive legal research material and he is

not receiving priority mail deliveries within 24 hours. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he will

experience irreparable harm because he currently has a Petition for Review pending in the

Arizona Supreme Court, will soon have a negligence claim in Superior Court, and has civil

complaints in the district court. (Id. at 6.) He also asserts that he is unable to have essential

resources for research. He claims that if he is unable to determine who is interfering with the

mail, he will be unsuccessful in his case. (Id.) He asserts that there is a likelihood of

irreparable harm. Plaintiff argues that the balancing of the equities favors him because the

prison designed the mail policy. (Id. at 6-7.) He attaches several exhibits to his motion,

including an affidavit from Yolanda Berg, excerpts from the Mail Policy, a Contraband

notification to Lenny Berg, and a “Schedule of Priority Mailings,” which was compiled by

Plaintiff. (Id., Exhibits A-D.) 

II. Preliminary Injunction Standard and Analysis

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and “one that should

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A.

Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, pp. 129-130 (2d ed. 1995)). To

obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show “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.”

Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Am.

Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The

movant has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Envtl. Council of Sacramento

v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).

In addition, the “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary

injunctions remains viable after the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter. Alliance for the

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F. 3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 2010). Under that test, a

preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates that “serious questions

Case 4:10-cv-00406-DCB Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [plaintiff’s]

favor.” Id., citing Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

This approach requires that the elements of the preliminary injunction test be balanced, so

that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another. “For

example, a stronger showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing

of likelihood of success on the merits.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 622 F. 3d at 1053.

Plaintiffs must also satisfy the other Winter factors, including the likelihood of irreparable

harm. Id.

As noted under either test, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable

harm in the absence of the requested relief. Plaintiff offers nothing but speculation regarding

the harm. “[S]peculation cannot substitute for evidence” of irreparable harm. Brewer v.

Landrigan, 131 S. Ct. 445 (2010) (quoting Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50 (2008)) (quoting

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993)). Plaintiff’s own evidence shows that he was

sent 28 packages or boxes or envelopes and that he received 19 of them. Plaintiff does not

even allege that Berg will be sending additional documents. Moreover, the prison mail

policy permits staff to “open, inspect, and read incoming mail to prevent criminal activity and

prevent inmates from receiving contraband or other material that may be detrimental to the

safe and orderly operation of the institution.” (Doc. 14, Ex. B, DO 914, 914.02 1.5.) The

Court will not direct the prison to accept and deliver all mail simply because Plaintiff asserts

that it will contain legal research. 

The motion is denied.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:10-cv-00406-DCB Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 14) is

denied.

DATED this 27th day of January, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00406-DCB Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 5 of 5