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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY BRADLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2033 MCE DAD P

vs.

CAPTAIN LEA, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s second motion for an injunction prohibiting

prison officials from tampering with his mail.

Plaintiff contends that the defendants are harassing him by tampering with his

attempts to send letters, which he characterizes as legal mail, to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation and the Postmaster General. The letters in question apparently concern plaintiff’s

allegations of a conspiracy to retaliate against him because he has filed a lawsuit. Plaintiff

believes that he is the victim of mail tampering because these letters were not listed on a

document which records outgoing mail from the state prison where he is housed. Plaintiff seeks

an order stopping this “harassment” and ensuring that he is not subjected “to physical danger for

persuing [sic] civil litigations.” (Mot. at 3.)

Case 2:04-cv-02033-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 04/28/05 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

2

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits

and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of

hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122

F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374,

1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal

point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under

any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. Filed

concurrently with these findings and recommendations is an order dismissing plaintiff’s amended

complaint in which he complains of the difficulties he has experienced in sending legal mail

from the prison. Plaintiff has been granted leave to file an amended complaint. In that order the

court determined that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he suffered actual injury because of

an alleged violation of his right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349

(1996). Similarly in this motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff has not demonstrate any actual

injury caused by the alleged interference with his legal mail. Therefore, the motion should be

denied.

On February 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter requesting that a copy of his motion

for an injunction be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiff is advised that the court

will not serve copies of parties’ documents on either opposing parties or on third parties.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 7, 2005 letter

shall be placed in the file and disregarded. 

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s February 7, 2005 motion

for an injunction be denied. 

Case 2:04-cv-02033-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 04/28/05 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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 28, 2005.

DAD:4

brad2033.inj2

Case 2:04-cv-02033-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 04/28/05 Page 3 of 3