Green v. Ferguson, et al.

Filing 27

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 26 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/21/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 4/16/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VENCIL GREEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:10-cv-01768 AWI JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

vs.
DR. LARRY N. FERGUSON, et al.,

15

(Doc. 26)

Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

I.

Motion for preliminary injunction

20

On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.1 (Doc. 26) In it,

21

Plaintiff complains that he has been repeatedly denied “priority user status” at the law library. Id. at 2-3.

22

Plaintiff complains that the Law Librarian, J. Guzman, and the Legal Officer, I. Vela Lopez, refused to

23

honor his “priority library user request” on December 5, 2011, January 6, 2012, January 10, 2012,

24

January 12, 2012. Id. Plaintiff claimed that he had concomitant “legal deadlines” on January 6, 2012,

25

January 17, 2012, January 20, 2012 and February 10, 2012, respectively. Id.

26
27
1

28

This is second motion for preliminary injunction Plaintiff has filed in this case. In the first such motion, Plaintiff
sought an order requiring Defendants to provide him immediate counseling. (Doc. 3) The Court denied this motion because
he failed to meet his burden of proving that this extraordinary relief should be granted. (Docs. 11, 14)

1

1

In his current motion, Plaintiff claims that he will be irreparably harmed if this continues because

2

he will “default on his cases and incur sanctions for missing his legal deadlines.” (Doc. 26 at 1) He

3

seeks an injunction prohibiting Guzman and Vela Lopez from denying him access to the law library. Id.

4

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy.” Winters v. Natural Resources Defense

5

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction

6

must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

7

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

8

the public interest.” (Citations omitted). A stronger showing of one element, however, may offset a

9

weaker showing of another. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir.

10

2011) (the sliding scale approach to balancing the elements for a preliminary injunction survives

11

Winters).

12

Once again, Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that preliminary relief is warranted. See

13

Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F.Supp. 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (party moving

14

for a preliminary injunction carries the burden of proof on each element of the test). Notably, the

15

preliminary injunction he seeks now, would be imposed on third parties who are unrelated to this

16

litigation.2 (Doc. 26 at 1) Moreover, the subject matter of his current request–access to the law

17

library–is unrelated to the merits of this litigation which claims inadequate medical care. (Doc. 13 at

18

1) Thus, in his current motion, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is any likelihood that he will

19

prevail on the merits of the underlying litigation. Moreover, even if he did make this showing, the

20

requested relief has no relationship to this underlying litigation.3

21

Second, the Court notes that, though Plaintiff claims he faced imminent legal deadlines on

22

January 6, 2012, January 17, 2012, January 20, 2012 and February 10, 2012, which necessitated his

23

access to the law library (Doc. 26 at 2-3), not one of these claimed deadlines involve this current action.

24

In fact, Plaintiff has not had a deadline imposed by this case since October 2011. (Doc. 17) Though he

25

has an upcoming discovery deadline on May 23, 2012, there is no showing that this would require that

26
27

2

28

3

The only defendants in this case are Ferguson, Lackovic, Baiza, W alker and W ilson. (Doc. 13 at 1)

Plaintiff is advised that the mere filing of a lawsuit does not entitle him or the Court to issue orders to those who
do not come within the Court’s jurisdiction, including employees of the CDCR.

2

1

Plaintiff have access to the law library. Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he faces irreparable

2

harm if the injunction is denied.

3
4

Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff’s February 27, 2012 motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 26) be DENIED.

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned

6

to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within 21 days after being served

7

with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Any

8

document containing written objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

9

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

10

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: March 21, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3