Truschke v. Zufall, et al
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/28/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 35 motion for preliminary injunction. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES EDWARD TRUSCHKE, Jr.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-0701 DB P
v.
ORDER
JOHN ZUFALL, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint on the
19
following claims: (1) excessive force against defendants Zufall, Young, K. Stewart, Church,
20
Page, Gerring and Schmidt; (2) interfering or tampering with plaintiff’s legal mail against
21
defendants Clark, Pender, Speers, Storms, Waggoner and Page; and (3) retaliation against
22
defendant Zufall. The alleged conduct occurred before plaintiff was remanded to the California
23
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) custody upon his conviction in state
24
court.
25
Pending now is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 35.) There,
26
plaintiff seeks an order directing staff at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego,
27
California to allow plaintiff twice-weekly access to the law library with related access to research
28
materials, paper, pens and other items “deemed necessary for to [sic] conduct a federal lawsuit.”
1
1
A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury
2
that would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. “A preliminary
3
injunction... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for preserving the
4
status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v.
5
Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary injunction represents
6
the exercise of a far reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it.
7
Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “The proper legal standard
8
for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the
9
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
10
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans,
11
Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009), citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
12
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (internal quotations omitted). In cases brought by prisoners involving
13
conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no
14
further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the
15
least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
16
Plaintiff’s motion seeks relief directed to employees of CDCR. However, the complaint in
17
this action concerns alleged civil rights violations inflicted on plaintiff by members of the Shasta
18
County Sheriff’s Department or other local law enforcement agents before plaintiff was remanded
19
to CDCR custody. A plaintiff cannot, as a general matter, obtain injunctive relief against non-
20
parties. “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits[.]” George v.
21
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
22
Of course, an inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the
23
courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21 (1977). This right requires state officials to
24
“‘assure indigent defendants an adequate opportunity to present his claims fairly.’” Id. at 823
25
(citation omitted). It includes reasonable access to a legal library. However, there is no
26
freestanding constitutional right to law library access for prisoners; law library access serves as
27
one means of ensuring the constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518
28
U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). “[T]he Constitution does not guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a
2
1
law library. Prison officials of necessity must regulate the time, manner, and place in which
2
library facilities are used.” Linquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th
3
Cir. 1985). An inmate is also entitled to adequate materials for drafting submissions to the courts:
4
“It is indisputable that indigent inmates must be provided at state expense with paper and pen to
5
draft legal documents, with notarial services to authenticate them, and with stamps to mail them.”
6
Bounds, 430 U.S. at 824-25.
7
A prisoner claiming that his right of access to the courts has been violated due to blocked
8
access to the law library or legal materials must show that: 1) access was so limited as to be
9
unreasonable, and 2) the inadequate access caused actual injury. Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794,
10
797 (9th Cir. 1994). A prisoner cannot make conclusory declarations of injury, but instead must
11
demonstrate that a non-frivolous legal claim has been frustrated or impeded. To prevail,
12
however, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial. An “actual injury” is “actual
13
prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing
14
deadline or to present a claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348.
15
[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.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Id. at 351.
This plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has been prejudiced by any restricted
22
access to his materials or the prison library or that any of the relief he presently seeks is essential
23
to preserve the status quo in the underlying action. The docket provides ample evidence that
24
plaintiff is not being unreasonably denied access to the court. The court finds no reason to
25
conclude that plaintiff is suffering an “actual injury” to his ability to prosecute his claims, as that
26
term is defined above.
27
28
Finally, it appears plaintiff’s requests for any prospective injunctive relief are moot. He
filed his motion for a preliminary injunction and for law library access while he was incarcerated
3
1
at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Plaintiff now lists his address as an inmate at
2
Atascadero State Hospital in Atascadero, California. (ECF No. 44.) Generally, when a prisoner
3
complains of unconstitutional conditions of confinement and is transferred to another facility, a
4
claim for injunctive relief from those conditions becomes moot. See Brady v. Smith, 656 F.2d
5
466, 468 (9th Cir.1981); Darring v. Kinchoe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1986); Johnson v.
6
Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1990). A plaintiff may avoid a finding of mootness if he can
7
demonstrate a reasonable expectation of returning to the facility where the allegedly
8
unconstitutional conditions persist. Darring, 783 F.2d at 876. Plaintiff has made no such showing
9
here.
10
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the
11
requested preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s
12
motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 35) is DENIED.
13
Dated: March 28, 2017
14
15
16
17
/DLB7;
DB/Inbox/Substantive/trus0701.tro
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?