Gregory E. Shehee (Civil Detainee) v. Trumbly et al

Filing 66

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's 65 Motion for Access to Copy Services signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 01/24/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 2/27/2017.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 REDDING, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO COPY SERVICES [ECF No. 65] At the time this action was filed, Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee was a civil detainee proceeding 18 pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California 19 Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the 20 meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for access to copy services, filed January 22 23, 2017. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order directing that he have access to photocopy 23 services within the Fresno County Jail. 24 I. 25 DISCUSSION 26 A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that 27 would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. “A preliminary injunction 28 … is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for preserving the status quo and 1 1 preventing the irreparable loss of right before judgment.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 2 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far 3 reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. V. Tapeprinter, 4 Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief 5 requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer 6 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and 7 that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc., v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 8 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). In cases brought by 9 prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, 10 extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be 11 the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 12 Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 13 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 14 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he 15 suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” 16 Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) 17 (internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis, 518 18 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 19 A prisoner cannot submit conclusory declarations of injury by claiming his access to the courts 20 has been impeded. Thus, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial of access without 21 further elaboration. Plaintiff must demonstrate “actual injury” from the denial and/or delay of access. 22 The Supreme Court has described the “actual injury” requirement: 23 24 25 26 [T]he inmate … must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. He might show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. Or that he suffered arguably actionable harm that he wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied by inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a complaint. 27 28 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 2 In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate “actual injury” by the failure of 1 2 access to photocopy services. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in the absence of 3 preliminary injunctive relief he is likely to suffer actual injury in prosecuting his case. “Speculative 4 injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” 5 Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988), citing Goldies 6 Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has provided no basis 7 for this court to interfere with the jail’s administration of its access to photocopy services, and 8 Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief should be denied. 9 II. 10 RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for access to 11 12 photocopy services be DENIED. 13 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 15 being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the 16 Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 17 Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 18 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 19 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 23 January 24, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?