2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-6-2010 

# D a w n B al l v . C

. O . O de n
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 10-1702

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" D a w n B al l v . C

. O . O de n " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 486. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/486

### CLD
- 282 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10

- 1702

___________ DAWN MARIE BALL,

Appellant

v. C.O. ODEN; C.O. REED; C.O. PINARD; SGT RAGAR; C.O. WOFORD; C.O. GAIR; LT. HUMMEL; C.O. KEEN; C.O. FOULDS; SGT. GRINER; SGT. CAMPBELL; CAPT. ROBENOLT; LT. GRIDLEY; SGT. WINDER; LT. BLESSING; LT. SISLEY; TROY EDWARDS; EISWERTH; C.O. SMITH; DEPUTY SMITH; LT. CRAVER; D. MILLER; REEDING; T. PETERSON; KOLENO; KOPSHINA; CIPHAM; SUPT. L AMAS; SECY. BEARD; C.O. AIKEY; C.O. ECKROTH; C.O. NOLTE; C.O. BAKER; LT. BARTO

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 09

- cv - 00847) District Judge: Honora ble Yvette Kane

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B) and Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 2, 2010 Before: BARRY, FISHER and GREENAWAY , JR. , Circuit Judges

.

(Filed: October 6, 2010 )

_________ OPINION

_________

### 2

PER CURIAM Dawn Marie Ball appeals from the District Court = s order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction. We will affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2008); 3d C ir. I.O.P. 10.6.
I. Ball, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against thirty

- four correctional officers and other prison personnel. Ball alleges various instances in which she claims that defendants searched her ce ll, seized her property, confiscated unspecified legal material, and interfered in various ways with her incoming and outgoing legal and other mail. She also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, in which she requests the immediate return of her pr operty and an order requiring defendants to provide her access to the law library and preventing them from labeling her mail. Defendants filed a brief in opposition to the motion, together with an appendix presenting evidence that Ball failed to exhaust h er claims and that they otherwise lack merit, and Ball filed a reply. By order entered February 17, 2010, the District Court denied Ball = s motion. Ball appeals.
II. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1292(a)(1). 1 

### We do so for abuse of discretion, though we review

1 

### The District Court = s February 17 order also denied a motion that Ball had filed for

### 3

underlying conclusions of law de novo. See Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp. , 204 F.3d 475, 484 (3d Cir. 2000). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the party seeking it must show, at a minimum, a likelihood of success on the merits and that she faces irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction. See id.

the appointment of counsel. Our jurisdiction does not extend to that ruling. See Smith

Bey v. Petsock , 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984). The Distri ct Court denied Ball = s motion on the grounds that she failed to establish these elements. For the reasons explained in the District Court = s thorough and careful opinion, we agree. Ball argues primarily that defendants are interfering with her right to

ac cess the courts. As the District Court explained, however, Ball has not shown that defendants are interfering with her ability to assert any non

- frivolous claim. See Christopher v. Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). Even if they were, she has a legal

re medy in the form of a denial

- of

- access suit, which she is pursuing here (and elsewhere, in the action pending at M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 08

- cv - 00701). She also has not shown that defendants are irreparably injuring her ability to litigate this or any other suit . As the District Court noted, Ball devoted the majority of her reply to arguing that she can overcome defendants = arguments regarding exhaustion but requires the materials they have confiscated from her in order to do so. The District Court concluded th at it could resolve that issue if and when appropriate during discovery. We cannot say that it abused its discretion in doing so.

### 4

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Ball = s motion for the appointment of counsel in this Court i s denied.