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

1

 Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Readdress Motion for Protection

Order/Preliminary Injunction” on May 3, 2006. The Court construes that documents as plaintiff’s

reply brief at is it appears to address defendants’ response to his motion for preliminary injunctive

relief.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL RIDEAUX, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. C05-2100-RSL-JPD

)

v. )

)

REED HOLTGEERTS, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

This is a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Michael Rideaux has

filed a document entitled “Motion for Order of Protection.” A review of this document suggests that

plaintiff intends to seek preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, this Court construes plaintiff’s

pending motion as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Defendants

have filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff has filed a reply brief in

support of his motion.1

 In addition, the parties, at the Court’s direction, have submitted supplemental

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 36 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 5
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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 2

briefs addressing certain issues raised in plaintiff’s motion papers. This Court, having reviewed

plaintiff’s motion, the briefs of the parties, and the balance of the record, concludes that plaintiff’s

motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.

DISCUSSION

 The basic function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo ante litem

pending a determination of the action on the merits. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com'n v.

National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). A party seeking a preliminary

injunction must fulfill one of two standards, the "traditional" or the "alternative." 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. 

Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d at 795 (citations omitted).

The standards "are not discrete tests, but are instead 'outer reaches of a single continuum.'" 

Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Chalk v. United States Dist. Ct., 840 F.2d

701, 704 (9th Cir. 1988)). To obtain injunctive relief under either standard the moving party must

demonstrate exposure to irreparable harm absent the requested judicial intervention. Caribbean

Marine Services Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). Speculative injury does not

constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting preliminary relief. Id. Rather, "a plaintiff

must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief." Id.

(emphasis in original). 

Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee at the King County Correctional Facility, Regional Justice

Center (“RJC”) in Kent, Washington. In his complaint, filed in December 2005, plaintiff challenges

RJC classification policies as well as the restrictions placed upon him as a result of his confinement

in the administrative segregation unit at the RJC. 

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 36 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 5
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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 3

In his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiff asserts that defendants, together with

RJC Law Librarian Merry Titus, have acted to deny him adequate access to the courts. Specifically,

plaintiff complains that Ms. Titus has consistently refused his requests for copies necessary to litigate

this case. Of particular concern appear to be requests for copies of declarations which had been

rejected. However, plaintiff also references his inability to obtain copies of “other stuff” such as

policies. Plaintiff contends that he cannot fairly or adequately prepare his case with this ongoing

interference with his right of access. 

In their response to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, defendants argued that 

plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury. Defendants noted that plaintiff had filed a motion for summary judgment on the

same date he filed the instant motion, and that his motion for summary judgment included exhibits

which consisted of copies of legal authority, jail policies, and declarations. Defendants suggested

that plaintiff’s ability to submit such a motion, supported by extensive exhibits, demonstrated that the

legal access system at the RJC was working for him and that he had not suffered any injury to his

right of access. Defendants also noted that plaintiff had not provided any written proof to support his

accusations that his copy work had been refused.

Plaintiff, in his reply brief, acknowledged that he had received some copy work from

defendants, but argued that defendants should not be permitted to decide which declarations, or how

many declarations, could be used against him. Plaintiff also asserted that while he had proof of his

accusation that his copy work had been refused, he was unable to submit it because he could not

obtain the copies necessary to provide the proof to the court and also comply with the court rules

requiring that copies of all court papers be sent to defendants. 

After reviewing the parties’ motion papers, this Court concluded that plaintiff had not shown

irreparable injury. The Court was concerned, however, that plaintiff may have been precluded from

making the requisite showing as a result of his alleged inability to obtain necessary copies. The

Court therefore issued an order directing the parties to submit supplemental briefs. In that Order,

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 36 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 5
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

2

 The Court notes that much of the argument presented in plaintiff’s supplemental brief, and

many of the exhibits which are apparently intended to constitute proof of the irreparable harm

plaintiff is suffering, do not directly concern either plaintiff or this case. Instead, the brief and

supporting documents appear to emphasize the difficulties that inmate Penwell has experienced with

the legal access scheme at the RJC rather than plaintiff’s own alleged difficulties. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 4

plaintiff was specifically directed to provide detailed information regarding the documents which he

was contending defendants had refused to copy, and defendants were directed to file a response to

plaintiff’s supplemental brief explaining why they should not be required to provide copies of those

documents.

In his supplemental brief, plaintiff makes specific reference to only three declarations. Those

declarations were attached as exhibits to the brief. With respect to those declarations, defendants

concede that they initially refused to copy them because they did not appear to comply with

institutional rules, but they assert that they subsequently made the copies after another inmate, Tony

Penwell, explained what the declarations were. Plaintiff claims that defendants did not, in fact, make

the copies and that he actually obtained the copies from an outside source through Mr. Penwell. 

Regardless of how the copies were obtained, plaintiff is now apparently in possession of the copies

he claimed were necessary for him to adequately prepare his case. If there are additional declarations

or other materials in dispute, plaintiff has not provided sufficient identifying information for either

the Court or defendants to respond to his concerns.2

The record before this Court simply does not support the conclusion that plaintiff will suffer

irreparable harm absent the requested judicial intervention. Broad allegations regarding deficiencies

in the legal access system at the RJC are not sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm and, at this

juncture, plaintiff has provided no evidence that defendants’ initial refusal to copy declarations

necessary to the litigation of this action have caused any irreparable harm. 

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 36 Filed 09/01/06 Page 4 of 5
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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 5

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court recommends that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief be denied. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. 

DATED this 1st day of September, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 36 Filed 09/01/06 Page 5 of 5