Goods v. McCumber, et al.

Filing 5

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/6/2014 ORDERING the clerk to randomly assign a District Judge and to serve a copy of this order on Monica Anderson and the Warden of CSP- Sacramento. District J udge Troy L. Nunley RANDOMLY ASSIGNED to this case. It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 3 Plaintiff's Motion be partially granted. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants be directed to provide plaintiff with as many copies of his petition for ha beas corpus as are required to make a complete submission with the Calfornia Supreme Court in sufficient time to meet his 11/25/2014 deadline and provide plaintiff with one additional copy. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (CC- Monica Anderson) (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY GOODS,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-02580 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

JEFFERY McCUMBER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s motion for a

19

temporary restraining order is presently before the court. For the reasons set forth below, the

20

undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion be granted.

21

I. Background

22

This action commenced on November 4, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges in his

23

complaint that his deadline for submitting a habeas corpus petition to the California Supreme

24

Court is November 25, 2014. He further alleges that prison officials have repeatedly refused to

25

allow him to make copies longer than 50 pages, and also refused to let him to copy his petition in

26

piecemeal increments. As a result, plaintiff has been unable to make sufficient copies of his

27

petition for filing with the state Supreme Court. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and

28

unspecified monetary damages.
1

1

Together with his complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that

2

would prevent the defendants “from denying plaintiff copying of Habeas Corpus writ of criminal

3

conviction to further his legal proceedings.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The moving papers provide that

4

plaintiff’s petition consists of 169 pages of written documents and 200 pages of exhibits. (Id.) In

5

a supporting declaration, plaintiff asserts that he provided staff with a written explanation of the

6

need to make copies greater than 50 pages in length. (ECF No. 3 at 6.)

7

II. Legal Standard

8

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is an

9

extraordinary and temporary “fix” that the court may issue without notice to the adverse party if,

10

in an affidavit or verified complaint, the movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable

11

injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in

12

opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to

13

preserve the status quo pending a fuller hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. It is the practice of this

14

district to construe a motion for temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary

15

injunction. Local Rule 231(a); see also Aiello v. OneWest Bank, No. 2:10-cv-0227-GEB-EFB,

16

2010 WL 406092 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2010) (“Temporary restraining orders are governed by

17

the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions.”) (internal quotation and citations

18

omitted).

19

The party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed

20

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

21

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

22

Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief

23

hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean

24

Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

25

Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff

26

demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the

27

public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits

28

of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for
2

1

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious

2

questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after

3

Winter).

4

The principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to

5

render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur

6

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this required showing

7

is that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the

8

claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial.

9

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary

10

injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the

11

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

12

harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

13

III. Analysis

14

A. Likelihood of success on the merits

15

In order to qualify for preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiff must first demonstrate a

16

likelihood that he will succeed on the merits of his claim.

17

Prisoners have a constitutionally-protected right of meaningful access to the courts.

18

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). This right encompasses the use of a copier to

19

prepare legal filings. See Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[I]t does not

20

require sophisticated ‘legal scholarship’ to know that a plaintiff's access to the courts could be

21

hindered seriously by an inability to make multiple, accurate copies of legal documents.”); Gluth

22

v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 1510 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Litigation necessarily requires some means of

23

accurate duplication because the court and the parties need to refer to the same documents.

24

Photocopying is a reasonable means of providing the necessary copies.”).

25

A prisoner claiming that his right of access to the courts has been violated must show,

26

first, that the limitations on access were unreasonable, and second, that inadequate access caused

27

actual injury. Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court has

28

defined “actual injury” as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation,
3

1

such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

2

343, 348 (1996).

3
4

Plaintiff has satisfied these requirements. The regulation that appears to apply in this
instance, entitled “Legal Forms and Duplicating Services,” provides in pertinent part:

7

A legal document to be duplicated for any inmate, including all exhibits and
attachments, shall be limited to the maximum number of pages needed for the
filing, not to exceed 50 pages in total length, except when necessary to advance
litigation. The inmate shall provide to designated staff a written explanation of the
need for excess document length.

8

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3162(c) (2014) (emphasis added).1 Plaintiff has stated that his petition

9

is 169 pages in length, with an additional 200 pages of exhibits.2 He avers that he provided

5
6

10

prison staff with a written explanation of why he needed to make more than 50 pages of copies, as

11

required by the quoted regulation. Further, the applicable California Rule of Court, entitled

12

“Habeas corpus proceedings,” provides that, absent a showing of good cause, habeas corpus

13

petitions must be filed on California Judicial Council form MC-275.3 Cal. R. Ct. 4.551(a). That

14

form, in turn, provides: “If you are filing this petition in the California Supreme Court, file the

15

original and 10 copies of the petition, and if separately bound, an original and 2 copies of any

16

supporting documents.”
It appears that -- given plaintiff’s compliance with the procedures in the quoted regulation,

17
18

the length of plaintiff’s petition, and the state Supreme Court’s requirement that petitioners file

19

multiple copies -- for defendants to continue to limit plaintiff’s ability to make the necessary

20

copies is unreasonable. Vandelft, 31 F.3d at 797. Moreover, plaintiff alleges a filing deadline of

21
1

22
23
24
25

Cal. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab. Operations Manual § 101120.15 similarly provides: “A legal
document to be duplicated for any inmate, including all exhibits and attachments, shall be limited
to the maximum number of pages needed for the filing, not to exceed 50 pages in total length.
Inmates requesting copy services must clearly identify the pages to be copied. Requests by an
inmate to duplicate a legal document exceeding 50 pages in length shall be granted when
accompanied by a reasonable written explanation of the need.”
2

26
27
28

3

In the court’s experience, habeas corpus petitions of this length are not uncommon.

“The California Rules of Court have the force of statute to the extent that they are not
inconsistent with legislative enactments and constitutional provisions.” Silverbrand v. Cnty. of
Los Angeles, 46 Cal. 4th 106, 125 (2009) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
4

1

November 25, 2014 -- less than three weeks from the date this order will issue. It is unclear how

2

plaintiff will meet this deadline unless he is able to make the requested copies. Accordingly,

3

plaintiff has demonstrated “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated . . . litigation[.]” Lewis,

4

518 U.S. at 348.

5
6

Based on this analysis, plaintiff has shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits
to justify the requested injunctive relief.

7

B. Likelihood of irreparable harm absent preliminary relief

8

Plaintiff must next demonstrate that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of [the

9

requested] injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (emphasis in original).

10

If plaintiff were denied the ability to make the requested copies, it appears that his only

11

option would be to file a single copy of an incomplete, 50-page-long habeas corpus petition with

12

the California Supreme Court. Under such a scenario, there exists a substantial risk that the state

13

Supreme Court might reject the petition due to plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite number of

14

copies. And even if plaintiff could demonstrate good cause for not complying with the stated

15

requirements, and the incomplete petition were accepted for filing, petitioner would have been

16

deprived of his ability to present his argument in full. Under the first scenario, plaintiff’s petition

17

would certainly be denied; under the second, it would likely be denied. In other words,

18

irreparable injury, whether due to a rejected or incomplete petition, is quite likely absent the

19

requested relief. While there is some chance that the California Supreme Court might, of its own

20

accord, order prison officials to allow plaintiff to make the necessary copies, such a possibility

21

merely begs the question of why this court would not order the necessary relief in the first place.

22

Doing so would both avoid a foreseeable harm and avoid taxing scarce judicial resources at the

23

state level.

24

Absent the requested relief, plaintiff will be unable to timely file a complete habeas

25

petition that accords with the state’s requirements. Further, it is unclear that he would be able to

26

rectify any deficiencies in the petition in the future. Under these circumstances, the court finds

27

that petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm absent the requested relief.

28

////
5

1

C. Balance of equities

2

The court must next balance the equities by weighing the harm that the requested relief

3
4

might cause the defendant against plaintiff’s threatened injury.
The court is conscious that state prisons have limited resources available to devote to

5

making copies in support of inmate litigation. Filings can be voluminous and require significant

6

staff time, to say nothing of the costs of supplies and maintenance. But these considerations are

7

trumped by plaintiff’s right of access to the courts. As the Supreme Court has held, “the tools . . .

8

require[d] to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to attack their sentences,

9

directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement.” Lewis, 518

10

U.S. at 355. Plaintiff has demonstrated that he needs more than fifty pages of copies in order to

11

collaterally attack his sentence. The prison’s interest in conserving scarce resources is therefore

12

outweighed by the plaintiff’s probable inability to timely file a complete habeas petition.

13

Accordingly, the balance of the equities involved tilts in plaintiff’s favor.

14

D. Public interest

15

Finally, the court must consider the competing public interests implicated by the requested

16
17

injunction.
As the Supreme Court has noted, “In the necessarily closed environment of the

18

correctional institution, few changes will have no ramifications on the liberty of others or on the

19

use of the prison's limited resources . . . .” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90 (1987). Further:

20
21
22
23
24

[T]he problems that arise in the day-to-day operation of a corrections facility are
not susceptible of easy solutions. Prison administrators therefore should be
accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and
practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline
and maintain institutional security.
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979).
These considerations are nevertheless trumped by plaintiff’s right of access to the courts,

25

particularly in the context of a habeas corpus petition. “When any inmate . . . shows that an

26

actionable claim [challenging a sentence or conditions of confinement] which he desired to bring

27

has been lost or rejected, or that the presentation of such a claim is currently being prevented,

28

because this capability of filing suit has not been provided, he demonstrates that the State has
6

1

failed” to meet its constitutional requirements.

2

Despite the significant deference owed by the courts to prison officials, this deference is

3

trumped by the public interest in allowing inmates, such as plaintiff, to challenge their sentences

4

under a writ of habeas corpus.

5

V. Conclusion

6

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that injunctive relief is warranted. The

7

court further finds that an order requiring prison officials to make only as many copies of

8

plaintiff’s petition, the exhibits thereto, and any accompanying forms (such as California Judicial

9

Council form MC-275) as are required to (i) file a complete petition for habeas corpus with the

10

California Supreme Court, and (ii) ensure that plaintiff has one complete copy of the filing is

11

“narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,

12

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,” as required

13

by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1).

14

The court does not find it necessary to grant plaintiff’s application to enjoin defendants to

15

permit him to make any copies necessary to file a habeas corpus petition with the federal district

16

court. Until such time as the California Supreme Court rules on plaintiff’s petition, the need to

17

file such a petition is merely speculative, as is any assumption that defendants will deny plaintiff

18

the ability to make necessary copies at such time.

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to (a) assign a district

20

judge to this case; and (b) serve a copy of this Order on the Warden of California State Prison –

21

Sacramento and on Monica Anderson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California

22

Department of Justice.

23

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

24

1. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 3) be partially granted;

25

2. Defendants be directed to provide plaintiff with as many copies of his petition for habeas

26

corpus relief, exhibits thereto, and accompanying forms as are required to make a

27

complete submission with the California Supreme Court in sufficient time to allow

28

plaintiff to meet the filing deadline of November 25, 2014; and
7

1

3. Defendants be directed to provide plaintiff with one (1) additional copy of his petition for

2

habeas corpus relief, exhibits thereto, and accompanying forms.

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

4

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days after

5

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with

6

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

7

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

8

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

9

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10

Dated: November 6, 2014

11
12
/good2580.tro

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8