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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MATTHEW G. SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, CAROL PORTER,

CLAN JACOBS, JOHN COPPOLA, TERRY

WENTLAND, DOES 1-10,unidentified coconspirators,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5731RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter comes before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom. Dkt. 31. The Court has considered the relevant

documents, including Plaintiff’s objections, and the file herein.

I. FACTS

On November 29, 2005, Plaintiff, an inmate at the Airway Heights Corrections Center, filed a civil

rights complaint against several defendants regarding events which took place while he was housed at the

Washington Corrections Center (“WCC”). Dkt. 1. While Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

was still pending, he filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 5. 

In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: 1) an order enjoining Defendants from “imposing any

further adverse actions and/or retaliation against Plaintiff for his First Amendment protected activities,

including transferring Plaintiff out-of-state,” 2) an order requiring Defendants to institute a system to verify

grievances, 3) an order requiring Defendants hold a hearing before transferring him to the intensive

management unit (“IMU”), and 4) an order requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff with either adequate

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 36 Filed 03/13/06 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

ORDER

Page - 2

access to persons trained in the law or to an adequate law library, or 5) a declaratory judgment that the

“stealing of Plaintiff’s grievances and related IMU transfer was unconstitutional,” and that the “current

legal materials access scheme at the WCC is unconstitutional.” Id. On December 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed his

Complaint. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff makes the following claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: 1) that his right to

pursue meritorious grievances and litigation to protect his rights without retaliation has been violated and

2) his right to a pre-transfer hearing before being moved to WCC’s IMU had been violated. Dkt. 11, at

16. 

On February 13, 2006, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom issued a Report and

Recommendation. Dkt. 31. The Report and Recommendation recommends that the motion be denied. Id.

On February 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed his own Declaration and the Declaration of Gary Williams. 

Dkts. 34, and 35. For the purposes of this Order, Plaintiff’s Declaration will be treated as Objections to

the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff provides no context in which to consider Mr. Williams’s

Declaration, and so the Court will not consider it. In Plaintiff’s Declaration, he states that because

Defendants have failed to ship legal files from the WCC to Airway Heights, he has missed a deadline to file

objections to a Report and Recommendation in one of his pending cases, and cannot file a joint-pretrial

statement in another. Dkt. 34, at 2. Plaintiff states that the Airway Heights staff is also “taken up the

practice of stealing and arbitrarily refusing to process grievances.” Id. at 3. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Plaintiff, as a party seeking injunctive relief,

must meet one of two standards. Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Under the traditional standard, a court may issue preliminary relief if it finds that (1) the

moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied; (2) the moving party will

probably prevail on the merits; (3) the balance of potential harm favors the moving party;

and (4) the public interest favors granting relief. Under the alternative standard, the moving

party may meet its burden by demonstrating either (1) a combination of probable success

and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.

Id. As explained in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden under either

standard for the injunctive relief he has requested in his motion. Plaintiff also has not shown that

declaratory relief is appropriate. Plaintiff’s statement in his Declaration that he has missed deadlines in

other cases because he did not have all his legal files does not address issues raised in this motion, although

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 36 Filed 03/13/06 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

ORDER

Page - 3

it may relate to issues in his Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff’s statement regarding the staff at Airway

Heights is not relevant in this action as none of them are named Defendants here. 

Therefore, it is hereby,

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 31), is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s motion for

a Temporary Restraining Order and for Injunctive Relief is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The

matter is RE-REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record

and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 36 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3