Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01645/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01645-38/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allen Hammler
Plaintiff
J. Wright
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

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WRIGHT,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-01645-TLN-EFB

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Allen Hammler’s (“Plaintiff”) 

“Motion for Order [28 U.S.C. § 1615(a)]” and “Ex Parte Motion for Order to Facilitate Filings of 

Motions In Limine and Other Motions.” (ECF Nos. 157, 158.) Plaintiff’s motions concern his 

ability to adequately prepare for trial which is set to commence on January 13, 2020. (See ECF 

No. 134.) In the first motion, Plaintiff seeks access to a telephone, stating that he needs access to 

a phone in order to acquire the pens and legal pads he wishes to use at trial. (ECF No. 157.) In 

the second motion, Plaintiff seeks assistance in accessing copies in preparation for trial and 

submitting motions in accordance with the Court’s Final Pretrial Order. (ECF No. 158.)

Defendant J. Wright (“Defendant”) has opposed these motions. (ECF Nos. 160, 161.) Construed 

as requests for preliminary injunctive relief and/or relief under the All Writs Act, Plaintiff’s 

motions are DENIED for the reasons discussed herein. 

/// 

Case 2:15-cv-01645-TLN-EFB Document 189 Filed 01/08/20 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

2

Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). “A 

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that 

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 

20. A plaintiff must “make a showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test to obtain a 

preliminary injunction. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2011). 

Under the All Writs Act, federal courts have the authority to issue “all writs necessary or 

appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of 

law.” 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). 

Plaintiff’s motions do not meet either of these standards. This case proceeds to trial on 

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant, not on any claim regarding access to adequate 

legal supplies. (See ECF No. 106; see also ECF No. 158 at 3–4 (Plaintiff complains in his 

supporting declaration of actions by non-parties and issues pertaining to “matters unrelated to this 

instant case. . .”).) Thus, Plaintiff’s motions necessarily fail to demonstrate either a likelihood of 

success on the merits or a serious question on the merits. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Further, 

Plaintiff’s motions fail to demonstrate that the requested court intervention is “necessary” for the 

proper administration of justice. 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). To the contrary, the very fact that Plaintiff

subsequently submitted multiple pretrial filings demonstrates he has sufficient access to pens and 

paper and the ability to file motions. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 171–172 (reply briefings), 175–176 (in 

limine motions), 177 (proposed voir dire), 184 (objections to trial exhibits).) Indeed, despite his

complaint about lacking access to copies, Plaintiff’s motion makes clear that he has such access. 

(See ECF No. 158 at 3 (“. . . to obtain copies of documents I must give them to c/o Ramos to be 

taken to the library where the librarian porter makes the copies . . .”).) Thus, Plaintiff fails to 

demonstrate he requires or is entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. 

///

Case 2:15-cv-01645-TLN-EFB Document 189 Filed 01/08/20 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 HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 157, 158), 

construed as requests for preliminary injunctive relief and/or relief under the All Writs Act, are 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2020

Case 2:15-cv-01645-TLN-EFB Document 189 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 3