Love v. Yates et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For A Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/16/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CARL R. LOVE,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02304-SMS PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

v.
(ECF No. 11)

12
13

JAMES A YATES, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Carl R. Love (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

16

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a

17

complaint alleging Defendants used a black box to restrain him during transport to a medical

18

appointment while he was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 1.) On March 23,

19

2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking access to the law library at Avenal

20

State Prison. (ECF No. 11)

21

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

22

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

23

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

24

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

25

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

26

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009) quoting Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374. An

27

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter,

28

129 S. Ct. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
1

1

For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield

2

v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires

3

Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and

4

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be

5

fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial

6

decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149

7

(2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).

8

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

9

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

10

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

11

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

12

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

13

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

14

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

15

The events at issue in this action occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Pleasant Valley State

16

Prison in Coalinga, California. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff is no longer housed at Pleasant Valley State

17

Prison, and the order sought is aimed at directing officials at Avenal State Prison to provide him

18

access to the law library. The case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that

19

the issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion bears no relation, jurisdictionally, to the past events

20

at Pleasant Valley State Prison giving rise to this suit. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. §

21

3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1148-49 (2009); Steel Co. v.

22

Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998). Additionally, ordering

23

Plaintiff access to the law library is not relief narrowly drawn to correct the violation alleged in this

24

action. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Because the case-or-controversy requirement cannot be met, the

25

pendency of this action provides no basis upon which to award Plaintiff injunctive relief.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction

2

allowing him access to the law library is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:
icido3

May 16, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3