Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01780/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01780-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Chen
Plaintiff
D.K. Sisto
Defendant
Johnathan Stubbs
Defendant
James Tilton
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHAEL CHEN,

NO. CIV. S-07-01780 WBS/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

JAMES TILTON, individually and

in his official capacity as

Director of the California

Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation; D.K. SISTO,

individually and in his

official capacity as Warden of

California State Prison at

Solano; and JOHNATHAN STUBBS,

individually and in his

official capacity as

Interstate Compact Transfer

Coordinator for the California

Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Michael Chen, a state prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed this action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights following

defendants’ decision to transfer plaintiff to an out-of-state

Case 2:07-cv-01780-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 8
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

1 On December 18, 1998, Plaintiff received a twenty-six

year prison sentence after he entered a no contest plea to eight

counts of robbery and use of an assault weapon in commission or

attempted commission of a felony. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

2

correctional facility. Plaintiff now moves for a temporary

restraining order (TRO) to prohibit defendants from executing the

transfer. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff is an inmate at the California State Prison

at Solano, which is administered by the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (Compl. ¶ 2.) On

August 13, 2007, CDCR informed plaintiff that he would be

transferred to an out-of-state prison, a site later identified as

the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Tutwiler,

Mississippi. (Id. ¶¶ 11-13.) Four days later on August 17,

2007, plaintiff proceeded to file an appeal in the Santa Clara

Superior Court challenging his original sentencing decree.1 (Id.

¶ 11-13.)

Plaintiff contends that he is being denied due process

and equal protection rights by defendants involuntarily placing

him on the transfer list. (Id. ¶¶ 21-23.) On August 30, 2007,

plaintiff moved for a TRO arguing that a transfer to an out-ofstate prison will deny him meaningful access to California state

and federal courts during his pending appeal in Superior Court. 

II. Discussion

The purpose in issuing a TRO is to preserve the status

quo pending a fuller hearing. Requests for temporary restraining

orders which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by

the same general standards that govern the issuance of a

Case 2:07-cv-01780-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 8
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

preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W.

Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los

Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d

1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); Century

Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y.

1990). 

The legal principles applicable to a request for

preliminary injunctive relief are well established. “The

traditional equitable criteria for granting preliminary

injunctive relief are: 1) a strong likelihood of success on the

merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if

the preliminary relief is not granted, 3) a balance of hardships

favoring the plaintiff, and 4) advancement of the public interest

(in certain cases).” Dollar Rent A Car v. Travelers Indem. Co.,

774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1985). 

The criteria are traditionally treated as alternative

tests. “Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary

injunction if the moving party demonstrates ‘either a combination

of probable success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.’” Martin v.

International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)

(quoting William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental

Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975)). As the Ninth

Circuit has reiterated: 

Martin explicitly teaches that “[u]nder this

last part of the alternative test, even if

the balance of hardships tips decidedly in

favor of the moving party, it must be shown

as an irreducible minimum that there is a

Case 2:07-cv-01780-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 3 of 8
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

fair chance of success on the merits.”

Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427,

1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Martin, 740 F.2d at 675).

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Convicted prisoners have no expectation that they will

remain in any particular facility, and prison officials have

broad authority to transfer prisoners from one facility to

another. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976); Montanye v.

Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976). Nonetheless, plaintiff contends

that his imminent transfer to the Mississippi facility is

unconstitutional because it undermines his access to the

California judicial system. Specifically, plaintiff argues that

a transfer would both deprive him of an available prison law

library containing California case law and deny him the ability

to personally litigate his pending pro se appeal with the Santa

Clara Superior Court. (Compl. ¶ 18.) 

It is firmly established that “prisoners have a

constitutional right of access to the courts.” Bounds v. Smith,

430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). Prisoners are therefore entitled to

adequate law libraries, assistance from people with legal

training, or some alternative means for ensuring “a reasonably

adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental

constitutional rights to the courts.” Id. at 825, 828. However,

in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the Supreme Court made

clear that mere allegations of an inadequate law library or legal

assistance program do not themselves sufficiently support an

action seeking vindication of the right to meaningful court

Case 2:07-cv-01780-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 4 of 8
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

access. Id. at 531 (“Because Bounds did not create an abstract,

freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an

inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by

establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance

program is subpar in some theoretical sense.”). 

Plaintiff speculates that the transfer to Mississippi

will effectively deny his access to a law library that includes

the necessary California case law to continue his pro se appeal. 

The motion is void of any showing of deficiency in regards to

either the California legal assistance program or the Mississippi

facility’s library service. Rather, plaintiff overlooks the fact

that a number of local prison systems either provide access to

foreign state casebooks or engage in an interlibrary loan system

that provides a plethora of material outside of the immediate

library compilation. See McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 199

(9th Cir. 1987) (noting that inmates in the Arizona State Prison

may request a variety of books through prison’s interlibrary loan

services); Lindell v. Schneiter, No. 06-608, 2007 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 18462 at *10 (W.D. Wis., Mar. 14, 2007) (emphasizing that

the prison library’s interlibrary loan system is the proper

channel by which inmates may receive, for example, copies of

articles from medical journals). 

It is this court’s understanding that the Tallahatchie

County Correctional Facility in Mississippi–-i.e. plaintiff’s

alleged destination–-uses an interlibrary loan system and makes

available to inmates a vast series of CD-ROMs containing out-ofstate rules, including California Court Rules, Deering’s

California Codes Annotated, and West’s Annotated California

Case 2:07-cv-01780-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 5 of 8
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 Telephone interview with Stacy Houston, Facility

Librarian, Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, in

Tutwiler, Miss. (Sept. 7, 2007).

6

Codes.2 Moreover, states which transfer prisoners to out-ofstate facilities will generally assume the obligation to supply

that prisoner with the basic legal assistance and materials

relevant to the law of the transferring state. Williams v.

Maass, No. 92-1394, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7056, at *3 (D. Or. May

21, 1993).

States need not supply every inmate a law library, as

long as it supplies a reasonable alternative to assure meaningful

access. United States v. West, 557 F.2d 151, 152-53 (8th Cir.

1977) (per curiam). One such reasonable alternative is the

assistance of appointed counsel. Bounds, 430 U.S. at 830-31;

Williams v. Leeke, 584 F.2d 1336, 1340 (4th Cir. 1978). Thus,

where an inmate has access to a court-appointed attorney to

pursue his claims of relief, that inmate is deemed to have

sufficient “access to the courts.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 830-31.

Here, plaintiff alleges that it is his direct appeal in

connection with which he needs library assistance. Presumably,

therefore, plaintiff could simply petition the state court for

appointment of counsel and thereby cure any perceived “access to

the courts” defect. He apparently chooses to abandon his

constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and instead

proceed pro se on his state court appeal. Douglas v. California,

372 U.S. 353 (1963). He accordingly cannot be heard to complain

that he is being denied access to the courts. See Salstrom v.

State, 148 Ariz. 382 (holding that indigent inmate, who was

Case 2:07-cv-01780-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

transferred from a Nevada facility to an Arizona prison lacking

Nevada legal material, was not denied “access to the courts”

where he need only petition the court for assistance of counsel).

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff fails to identify

a protected constitutional interest at serious risk. 

Accordingly, likelihood of success on the merits of his claim is

low.

B. Irreparable Harm

Plaintiff’s contention that he will suffer irreparable

harm if the TRO is not granted lacks foundation for identical

reasons as his merit-based claim–-his motion is void of actual

evidence regarding overtly harmful deficiencies in the legal

assistance programs of either California or Mississippi that will

deprive him of his right of access to court. In particular,

plaintiff’s contention that he will be denied access to a

California-based law library ignores consideration of reasonable

alternatives that could assure meaningful access as prescribed by

the Constitution. Even if plaintiff is correct that he may

suffer some degree of harm as a result of the transfer, this

court must nonetheless account for the low likelihood of success

on the merits of his claim. Accordingly, plaintiff’s allegations

of harm are insufficient to tip the balance in favor of granting

plaintiff the extraordinary relief of a TRO. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01780-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a

temporary restraining order be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: September 11, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-01780-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 8 of 8