Robinson v. Lopez

Filing 31

ORDER denying 27 Motion for injunctive relief signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 06/15/11. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

LONNIE D. ROBINSON,

12

Petitioner,

No. CIV S-10-1391 JAM CMK (TEMP) P

Respondent.

ORDER

13
14
15
16

vs.
R. LOPEZ,

/

17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

18

application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed a motion for an

19

injunction, claiming his access to legal materials has been denied since his transfer to Pleasant

20

Valley State Prison, where he is currently incarcerated.

21

A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened

22

injury that would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. “A

23

preliminary injunction... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for

24

preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment.” Sierra

25

On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary

26

injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to be indulged except in a case
1

1

clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “The

2

proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is

3

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

4

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

5

public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting Winter

6

v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 (2008). In cases brought

7

by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly

8

drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary

9

relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

10

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the relief he presently seeks is essential to

11

preserve the status quo in the underlying action. He claims that he is “in desperate need of his

12

legal materials in order to continue his litigation.” Motion at 1. However, this case has already

13

been fully briefed and submitted for final disposition to the court. If petitioner needs to bring

14

other matters to the court’s attention in this case, he does not say what they are. Moreover, any

15

restrictions on his access to legal materials have obviously not impeded his ability to seek relief

16

or otherwise communicate with the court in this case, as evidenced by the instant motion and

17

other recent submissions from petitioner. Petitioner has thus failed to demonstrate that in the

18

absence of injunctive relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm – either on the merits of the

19

instant litigation or, more fundamentally, to his person. “Speculative injury does not constitute

20

irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine

21

Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988), citing Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v.

22

Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Rather, a presently existing actual threat must

23

be shown, although the injury need not be certain to occur. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

24

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130-31 (1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir.

25

1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998); Caribbean Marine, supra, 844 F.2d at 674.

26

/////
2

1

If petitioner believes prison officials have unreasonably impeded his ability to

2

litigate another case, he must bring that complaint in that case or initiate an entirely new action.

3

“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits[.]” George v. Smith, 507

4

F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

5
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief (docket no. 27) is denied.

7
8

DATED: June 15, 2011

9

______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
hm

14

robi1391.ord

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3