Crime, Justice & America, Inc., et al vs. Reniff

Filing 93

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/9/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 81 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CRIME, JUSTICE & AMERICA, INC., a
California Corporation; and RAY
HRDLICKA, an individual,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:08-cv-00343-TLN-EFB

ORDER

v.
JERRY W. SMITH, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of the County of Butte,
California,
Defendant.

18
19
20

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF

21

No. 81.) Defendant has filed an opposition to the motion, (ECF No. 89), and Plaintiffs a reply,

22

(ECF No. 90). Finding that oral argument would not be of material assistance, see E.D. Cal. L.R.

23

230(g), the matter was submitted on the briefs, (ECF No. 92). The Court has carefully considered

24

the arguments presented by both parties. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a

25

Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

26

BACKGROUND

27

Plaintiffs are publishers of Crime, Justice & America magazine, a quarterly publication

28

with content germane to inmates awaiting trial. The magazine also includes advertisements for
1

1

bail bondsmen and criminal-defense attorneys, and it is usually distributed—with cooperation

2

from local jails—to inmates in custody. In this case, Plaintiffs asked Butte County Jail to

3

distribute their magazine to the inmates, and Butte County Jail officials refused. Plaintiffs

4

brought this lawsuit in February of 2008 seeking a declaratory judgment affirming their right to

5

distribute their magazine in the Butte County Jail and an injunction enjoining the Butte County

6

Sheriff from prohibiting the distribution of the magazine. (ECF No. 1.)

7

On remand from the Ninth Circuit, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of

8

judgment on remand, and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

9

judgment, holding genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Plaintiffs’

10

First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 79.) The factual background of this

11

case is set out in greater detail in that order. (See generally id.)

12

STANDARD

13

Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear

14

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555

15

U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). Under

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a court may issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the

17

relative positions of the parties pending a trial on the merits. Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451

18

U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is

19

likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

20

preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in

21

the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.

22

Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that the “sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions

23

remains viable after the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632

24

F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this test, the plaintiff must “make a showing on all four

25

prongs” of the Winter test to obtain an injunction; however, if a plaintiff establishes a “balance of

26

hardships tip sharply in the plaintiff’s favor” and “serious questions going to the merits,” a

27

preliminary injunction may issue on a lesser showing of irreparable injury and that the injunction

28

is in the public interest, so long as the court considers all four factors. Id. at 1135 (citing Miller v.
2

1

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). However, the court need not reach the

2

other prongs if the plaintiff cannot as a threshold matter demonstrate at least a “fair chance of

3

success on the merits.” Pimental v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting

4

Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2008)).

5

ANALYSIS

6

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendant, Sheriff of Butte County, to “distribute

7

Crime, Justice & America to inmates at Butte County Jail as mailed in and addressed to

8

individual inmates.” (ECF No. 88, at 2:8–10.) As such, Plaintiffs request a mandatory

9

preliminary injunction. (Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (“Reply”) 1:22, ECF

10

No. 90.) “When a mandatory preliminary injunction is requested, the district court should deny

11

such relief unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal.,

12

13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994); accord Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer

13

Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 756 (“[A] mandatory

14

injunction is particularly disfavored. In general, mandatory injunctions are not granted unless

15

extreme or very serious damage will result[,] and are not issued in doubtful cases.”). Moreover, a

16

district court should also weigh a party’s delay in seeking a preliminary injunction in balancing

17

the equities as part of the analysis to decide whether a preliminary injunction should issue. W.

18

Watersheds Project v. Salazar, 692 F.3d 921, 923 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The District Court also

19

properly exercised its discretion in weighing Appellant’s delay in seeking a preliminary

20

injunction . . . among the equitable factors.”).

21

Here, Plaintiffs waited to file a motion for a preliminary injunction until after five years of

22

litigation had elapsed and nearly a year after Plaintiffs had filed a motion for entry of judgment on

23

remand and for summary judgment. (ECF No. 60.) Moreover, this Court has previously held

24

there exist genuine disputes of material fact whether the Butte County Jail officials had legitimate

25

penological concerns that distributing Crime, Justice & America magazine (which contains

26

defense lawyer and bail bondsmen ads) would run afoul of California law prohibiting solicitation

27

of inmates in jails by attorneys and bondsmen. (ECF No. 79.) Further, this Court has held there

28

exist genuine disputes of material fact whether the jail’s regulations are rationally related to a
3

1

legitimate penological interest in prison security, since inmates may be more likely to use

2

unsolicited, unrequested periodicals to clog toilets and windows. See Prison Legal News v. Cook,

3

238 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The only question is whether prison administrators

4

reasonably could have thought the regulation would advance legitimate penological interests.”).

5

Although Plaintiffs are correct that the standards on summary judgment and for a preliminary

6

injunction “are not the same,” (Reply 1:9–10, ECF No. 90), after review of Plaintiffs’ motion and

7

supporting evidence attached therein, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that

8

“the facts and law clearly favor” their position such that Plaintiffs have established a sufficient

9

likelihood of success on the merits to warrant mandatory injunctive relief. Stanley, 13 F.3d at

10

1320; see also Pimental, 670 F.3d at 1111 (holding a court need not reach the other prongs of the

11

Winter test if the plaintiff cannot as a threshold matter demonstrate at least a “fair chance of

12

success on the merits”). Moreover, when considered together with Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking a

13

preliminary injunction—more than five years since this litigation began and nearly a year after

14

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment—Plaintiffs have not “satisfied . . . the heightened

15

standard [the Ninth Circuit] ha[s] adopted with respect to mandatory injunctions.” Park Vill.

16

Apartment Tenants Ass’n, 636 F.3d at 1161.

17
18
19
20
21

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 81) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: December 9, 2013

22
23
24

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
4