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)

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