Howard Bloomgarden v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 91

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE 86 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc). Modified on 12/20/2012 (lc).

1
2
3

O

4

194

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HOWARD BLOOMGARDEN,

12
13
14

Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et
al.,

15
Defendants.
16
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 11-09449 DDP (MRW)
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[Dkt. No. 86]

17
18
19
20

Presently before the court is Petitioner Howard Bloomgarden’s
Emergency Motion a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”).
A temporary restraining order is meant to be used only in

21

extraordinary circumstances.

22

the requesting party must show (1) that he is likely to succeed on

23

the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

24

absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities

25

tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public

26

interest.

27

(2008).

28

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility

To establish entitlement to a TRO,

Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Counsel, 555 U.S. 7, 20

A TRO may be warranted where a party (1) shows a

1

of irreparable harm, or (2)raises serious questions and the balance

2

of hardships tips in favor of a TRO.

3

Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the

5

required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of

6

success decreases.”

7

party must demonstrate a “fair chance of success on the merits” and

8

a “significant threat of irreparable injury.”1

9

See Arcamuzi v. Continental
“These two

Under both formulations, however, the

Id.

Id.

Petitioner is incarcerated at the Twin Towers Correctional

10

Facility.

11

his cell and confiscated “most of Plaintiff’s civil and criminal

12

legal work.”

13

informed him that inmates do not have the right to retain legal

14

materials related to pro se civil actions.

15

seizure, a paralegal retrieved Petitioner’s legal materials for

16

safekeeping on Petitioner’s behalf.

17

(Mot. at 1.)

Petitioner alleges that a deputy entered

(Mot. at 2.)

According to Petitioner, deputies

Id.

Two days after the

(Id.)

The basis of Petitioner’s application for a TRO is somewhat

18

unclear to the court.

19

right to access the courts.

20

(1977).

21

short period of time is not necessarily a constitutional violation,

22

and some restrictions on a prisoner’s access to legal resources are

23

allowed to accommodate legitimate administrative concerns.”

24

v. Gonzalez, No. 10-cv-00285 JLT, 2012 WL 6019579 at *2 (E.D. Cal.

Prisoners clearly have a constitutional
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821

However, “[d]enial of access to legal materials for a

Pierce

25
1

26
27
28

Even under the “serious interests” sliding scale test, a
plaintiff must satisfy the four Winter factors and demonstrate
“that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the
injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild
Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
2

1

Dec. 3, 2012) (citing Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1523 (9th Cir.

2

1993).

3

courts must show actual injury.

4

(1996).

5

Furthermore, an inmate alleging a denial of access to the
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349

Here, Petitioner does not allege any actual injury.

Though

6

Plaintiff seeks to retain legal materials inside his cell, there is

7

no allegation or indication that he has been or will be denied

8

access to legal materials stored elsewhere, or that such an

9

arrangement would prevent meaningful access to the courts.

10

it appears that, despite Petitioner’s pro se status, he is

11

receiving assistance from an attorney and a paralegal who, at

12

Petitioner’s direction, took custody of Petitioner’s legal

13

materials.

14

that Petitioner may retain up to eight folders of legal material in

15

his cell, pursuant to a state court order.2

16

Maurice Jolliff ¶¶ 6, 9; Ex. A).

17

Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the

18

merits or that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm.

19

Indeed,

Furthermore, Defendants have represented to the court

(Declaration of

Under such circumstances,

For these reasons, Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Temporary

20

Restraining Order is DENIED, without prejudice.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: December 20, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
2

27
28

It is unclear on the record before the court whether
Petitioner has retained any legal materials in his cell.
Defendants do not describe, nor does Petitioner challenge,
generally applicable legal access policies.
3