-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JASEN SMITH, 

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-14118

v. DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON

BILL CATINELLA, SAL AHMED, MAGISTRATE JUDGE VIRGINIA M. MORGAN

SHERRY BURT, WILL RILEY,

C. BRADSHAW, YONKIE, and

PRINCE,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the plaintiff, an inmate in the custody

of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), alleges that defendants, among other

constitutional violations, denied him access to the courts. The matter comes before the Court on

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D/E #3). Defendants Catinella, Ahmed, Burt,

Riley and Bradshaw filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion (D/E #19). For the

reasons discussed below, this Court recommends that plaintiff’s motion be DENIED.

In his motion, plaintiff requests an injunction ordering defendants to refrain from

interfering with plaintiff’s litigation. “To determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a

district court must consider: ‘(1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether

the plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (3) whether granting the

2:08-cv-14118-DML-VMM Doc # 21 Filed 01/27/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 191
-2-

injunction will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) the impact of an injunction upon the

public interest.’” Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443 F.3d 540, 546 -547 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Deja

Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 274 F.3d 377, 400 (6th

Cir. 2001). However, none of the factors are a prerequisite to relief and the court should balance

them. Abney, 443 F.3d at 547. Thus, even though a finding of no likelihood of success “is

usually fatal[,]” Gonzales v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000), a

district court should ordinarily analyze all of the factors. Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 739

n. 3 (6th Cir. 2000). 

With respect to the first factor, a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must

demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits. Chabad of Southern Ohio &

Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 363 F.3d 427, 432-433 (6th Cir. 2004). Inmates

have a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.

817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). However, the right of access to the courts is not

unrestricted and does not mean that an inmate must be afforded unlimited litigation resources. 

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). “Thus, a

prisoner’s right to access the courts extends to direct appeals, habeas corpus applications, and

civil rights claims only.” Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir.1999). Moreover,

an inmate claiming that he was denied access to the courts must show that he suffered an actual

litigation-related injury or legal prejudice because of the actions of the defendants. Lewis, 518

U.S. at 349- 51; Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999); Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92

F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996).

2:08-cv-14118-DML-VMM Doc # 21 Filed 01/27/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 192
-3-

In this case, plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to the courts when defendants

barred him from sending materials directly to the trial judge in plaintiff’s criminal case in regard

to a lien plaintiff placed against the sentencing judge pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. 

However, while plaintiff’s filings were against the judge who sentenced him in his criminal case,

they do not appear to relate at all to an appeal of plaintiff’s criminal sentence, a petition for writ

of habeas corpus or a civil rights claim. As discussed above, “a prisoner’s right to access the

courts extends to direct appeals, habeas corpus applications, and civil rights claims only”

Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 391, and plaintiff claims in this case do not appear to fall within that

right. Furthermore, plaintiff also appears likely to lose on the merits because he does not allege,

or appear to have any evidence, demonstrating that he suffered an actual litigation-related injury

or legal prejudice because of the actions of the defendants. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349- 51;

Boswell, 169 F.3d at 387; Pilgrim, 92 F.3d at 416. 

With respect to whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction,

plaintiff asserts that the continuing denial of an ability to send materials to the sentencing judge

leaves plaintiff in a constant state of worry and stress because he is wondering if he has lost his

chance at recourse or remedy. However, while plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction

discusses the danger of irreparable harm in terms of plaintiff’s criminal sentence, the materials

he sent to the sentencing judge, and presumably wants to send again, relate to a lien plaintiff

filed against the sentencing judge and not to plaintiff’s criminal case.

With respect to whether granting the injunction will cause substantial harm to others,

plaintiff only argues that the threat of irreparable harm to him outweighs any harm that the

2:08-cv-14118-DML-VMM Doc # 21 Filed 01/27/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 193
-4-

injunction may cause defendants. Defendants assert that the MDOC and the Michigan

legislature have taken steps to prevent incarcerated individuals in this State from subjecting

Michigan citizens from the real harm caused by the encumbrance of their private property by

Michigan inmates through fraudulent UCC filings. Neither parties provides any support

regarding the merits of plaintiff’s filing. 

Finally, with respect to the impact the injunction would have on the public interest,

plaintiff only asserts a general public policy of vindicating constitutional rights while defendants

point to a specific case of the United States Supreme Court. In Overton v. Bazzetta, the Supreme

Court held that it must “accord substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison

administrators, who bear a significant responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a

corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them.” 

Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132, 123 S.Ct. 2162, 2167, 156 L.Ed.2d 162 (U.S. 2003). 

That public policy of according deference to the professional judgment of administrators weighs

in favor of denying plaintiff’s motion.

Balancing the above factors, plaintiff’s motion must be denied. He has failed to

demonstrate that he is likely to prevail on the merits or that he would suffer irreparable harm

absent the injunction. Moreover, it appears that granting the injunction would be against the

public interest. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to act within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific

2:08-cv-14118-DML-VMM Doc # 21 Filed 01/27/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 194
-5-

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v.

Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues,

but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to

this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir.

1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). 

Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this

magistrate judge.

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall be no more than 20 pages in length

unless, by motion and order, the page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address 

each issue contained within the objections specifically and in the same order raised.

s/Virginia M. Morgan 

Virginia M. Morgan

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: January 27, 2009 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and plaintiff via

the Court’s ECF System and/or U. S. Mail on January 27, 2009.

s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

2:08-cv-14118-DML-VMM Doc # 21 Filed 01/27/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 195