Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01232/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01232-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K. Harrington
Defendant
Jerry Emanuel Pollard
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

JERRY EMANUEL POLLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. HARRINGTON, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1232-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

ORDER DEFENDANTS TO REISSUE

PERSONAL PROPERTY BE DENIED

(ECF No. 14)

Plaintiff Jerry Pollard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Order Defendants’ to Reissue Personal

Property in which he asks the Court to order prison officials to return property seized when

plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation. [ECF No. 14] Plaintiff alleges that prison

officials took his legal materials, including books and papers and stamps and envelopes

he used to communicate with the Court. Plaintiff contends that this seizure violates his

constitutional right to access the courts. The Court construes this Motion as a request for

injunctive relief. 

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief is required to “show that he is under threat of

suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct

of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or

redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009)

Case 1:09-cv-01232-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 07/27/10 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

 The Court notes that Plaintiff has recently filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21] which the 1

Court must screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) before this matter can proceed. As such, no action

is required on the part of the Plaintiff at this time. 

-2-

(citation omitted); Stormans, Inc., 586 F.3d at 1119.

Plaintiff initiated this action on May 1, 2009 to remedy constitutional violations that

allegedly occurred from 2007 through early 2009. (ECF No. 1.) The instant Motion alleges

that Plaintiff’s personal property was seized on October 7, 2009, after the events

underlying this action occurred. (ECF No. 14.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege an injury that is concrete,

particularized, and capable of being redressed by the Court in this action. Because the

events complained of in the instant Motion occurred after the filing of this action, the Court

lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. See Summers v. Earth Island

Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (denying relief when favorable judicial decision

would not redress the injury). Should Plaintiff succeed on the merits of his claim, such

success would not entitle him to the return of property seized after this action was initiated.

Because a favorable judicial decision would not redress the injury alleged in the instant

Motion, Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. See Summers, 129 S. Ct. at 1149.

Moreover, even if timing were not an issue, Plaintiff has failed to allege an actual

injury that is concrete and particularized. “To prove a violation of the right to meaningful

access to the courts, a prisoner must establish that the state has not provided an

opportunity to litigate a claim challenging the prisoner’s sentence or conditions of

confinement in a court of law, which resulted in actual injury, that is, the hindrance of a

nonfrivolous and arguably meritorious underlying legal claim.” White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d

677, 680 (8th Cir. 2007). To the extent that Plaintiff is being denied access to his legal

materials, he has failed to show that such denial has hindered his ability to prosecute this

lawsuit. Plaintiff has met all of the deadlines imposed on him by the Court thus far, even

those that have occurred after his property was seized, and has failed to show that there

is a pending deadline that may be adversely affected by the seizure of his legal materials.1

Case 1:09-cv-01232-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 07/27/10 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

-3-

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion to Order Defendants to

Reissue Plaintiff’s Personal Property [ECF No. 14] be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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 Recommendation.” The

Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

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 26, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01232-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 3