Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00547/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00547-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael D. Hickman
Petitioner
William Muniz
Respondent

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

MICHAEL D. HICKMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Defendant.

No. 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 50)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for an injunction ordering Respondent to 

provide him with materials necessary to prepare legal documents needed for his access to the 

courts. 

1. Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contends that Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP") refuses to provide indigent 

prisoners, including Petitioner, with basic supplies such as paper, pens, and typewriters to prepare 

legal documents. Respondent disagrees. 

According to the declaration and documentation provided by Respondent, in January, 

February, May, and August 2015, Petitioner applied for and was granted indigent mail status, 

entitling him to receive five envelopes per week, thirty safety dental floss loops monthly, and up 

to five sheets of paper and a golf pencil upon request. Petitioner did not request indigent mail 

status for supplies in February, March, June, or July 2015. In addition, since June 10, 2015, when 

he requested an extension of time to prepare objections to the findings and recommendations in 

this case, Petitioner has had law library access about twenty times; the law library provides 

pencils and paper to inmates.

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 56 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2. Standards and Discussion

A[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). A mandatory 

preliminary injunction such as the one plaintiff seeks here Ais subject to heightened scrutiny and 

should not be issued unless the facts and the law clearly favor the moving party.@ Dahl v. HEM 

Pharmaceuticals Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993). To secure a preliminary injunction, a 

petitioner must demonstrate Aeither (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of 

irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its 

favor.@ Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either 

approach, the petitioner Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. No 

injunction should issue if the petitioner fails to demonstrate Aa fair chance of success on the 

merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id. 

Having reviewed both parties' contentions and Respondent's documentation of the 

supplies and law library access provided to Petitioner, the Court finds no support for Petitioner's 

contentions other than his own claim that he has been denied supplies. On the other hand, 

Respondent has fully documented that writing supplies were available to Petitioner upon his 

request. Accordingly, the balance of equities does not require the Court to intervene in SVSP's 

provision of writing materials to indigent inmates.

3. Conclusion and Order

The Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's motion for injunctive relief. Petitioner is directed

to submit his objections to the findings and recommendations, if any, on or before September 22, 

2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 56 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2