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

Filing 95

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motions for Copies and Granting Plaintiff's Extension of Time to Comply with the Court's May 10, 2017, Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 06/07/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 7/5/2017.(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
16
17
18
19

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
COPIES AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S MAY 10, 2017, ORDER
[ECF Nos. 92, 93, 94]

At the time this action was filed, Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee was a civil detainee proceeding
pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 2, 2017 and June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed three separate motions for copies. Although

20

it is difficult to decipher, in his motions Plaintiff contends that prison officials are retaliating against

21

him by failing to provide him copying services, access to his legal documents, failure to process

22

grievances, and placement in administrative segregation, denying him access to the court. The Court

23

construes Plaintiff’s motions as requests for preliminary injunctive relief.

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 alleged

1
2

misconduct by prison officials. 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.

8

Moreover, this action is proceeding against Defendants for Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force,

9

not denial of access to the courts and/or retaliation. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin prison officials, including

10

some named Defendants for alleged actions outside of the scope of his excessive force claim, and

11

Plaintiff has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor the threat of irreparable

12

injury as to any Defendant. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named

13

Defendants in this action. This Court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not

14

parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100,

15

112 (1969). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for a preliminary injunction must be denied.

16

II.

17

RECOMMENDATION

18

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for a

19

preliminary injunction be DENIED.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

20
21

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21)

22

days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written

23

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

24

Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

25

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-

26

39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

27

///

28

///
3

1

III.

2

ORDER
In light of Plaintiff’s claims that he has been unable to comply with the Court’s May 10, 2017,

3
4

order to complete and return the necessary service of process documents, on the basis of good cause,

5

the Court will grant Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of this order to submit the necessary

6

documentation. The failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in dismissal of the action.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

10

June 7, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4