Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00478/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00478-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE EDWARD BEJARAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00478-AWI-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONFOR ATEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER BE DENIED

(Doc. 20.)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Jesse Edward Bejaran (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 21, 2009, Plaintiff

filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order alleging prison officials are tampering with

his mail. (Doc. #20.)

The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the

status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court

to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. 

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary

injunction must establish 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 Defense Council, Inc.,

129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-00478-AWI -SMS Document 33 Filed 07/30/10 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

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, 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) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A

party seeking a preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported by

evidence. With respect to motions for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order,

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that:

[i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent

otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary

restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief.

Preliminary injunctive relief 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 that harm.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a temporary

restraining order. The only evidence included with Plaintiff’s motion is a three-page declaration

from Plaintiff stating that he will suffer irreparable injury because Defendants have been tampering

with Plaintiff’s legal mail. Plaintiff complains that Defendants are opening mail from the Court

addressed to Plaintiff outside his presence. Mail from the Court is not privileged or confidential or

otherwise afforded protection beyond that which is provided for ordinarymail. See Keenan v. Hall,

83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996). Mail from the Court generally consists of information that can

easily be accessed by any member of the public. Plaintiff has cited no authority that supports the

proposition that he suffers a constitutional injury when mail from the Court is opened outside his

presence. Plaintiff also complains that prison officials are not sending his outgoing mail addressed

to the Court. Notably, Plaintiff has not missed any deadlines in this case and has not suffered any

prejudice in this case due to late filings. 

Plaintiff also complainsthat prison officials will conduct harassing cell searches to confiscate

Plaintiff’s legal materials and interferewith hislegal research. Plaintiff’s allegations are speculative. 

Plaintiff has failed to establish that the threat of irreparable injury is imminent. Plaintiff is not

entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order based only on his conclusory

allegation that prison officials may confiscate his legal materials in the future.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00478-AWI -SMS Document 33 Filed 07/30/10 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

Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff has made no effort to demonstrate that he is likely to

prevail on the merits of this action. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

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 (10) 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00478-AWI -SMS Document 33 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 3