Adkins v. Unnamed Defendants

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF re 6 ; 7 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 04/14/2014. (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
TINEIMALO ADKINS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNNAMED,
Defendants.
____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. NO. 14-00156 LEK/KSC
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff filed this action on March 31, 2014.
No. 1.

Doc.

He neither paid the filing fee, submitted an in forma

pauperis application, submitted his complaint on court forms,
named any defendants, nor provided sufficient detail for the
court to determine whether he states a claim for relief.
Deficiency Order, Doc. No. 4.

See

On April 8, 2014, the court

instructed Plaintiff to correct these deficiencies on or before
May 6, 2014, or risk dismissal of this action.

Id.

Before the court are Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive
relief regarding legal mail and medical care requests at the
Federal Detention Center Honolulu (“FDC”).

Doc. Nos. 6, 7.

Plaintiff alleges his legal mail is being opened outside of his
presence and his requests for medical attention were ignored
until he notified Captain Reiser.

Id.

Plaintiff does not

specify whether he seeks a temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction, or simply immediate relief on claims that

apparently form part of the basis for his suit.

Regardless,

Plaintiff’s requests for immediate injunctive relief are DENIED
without prejudice.
I.

DISCUSSION

The “circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex
parte order are extremely limited” because “our entire
jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken
before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been
granted both sides of a dispute.”

Reno Air Racing Ass’n v.

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that a
temporary restraining order was improperly issued because notice
to the adverse party was neither impossible nor would it render
the action fruitless (citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.
Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

65 outlines the “stringent restrictions imposed” for issuing ex
parte injunctive relief.

Id.

The court may issue a preliminary injunction “only on
notice to the adverse party.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1).

Similarly, a temporary restraining order will be issued without
written or oral notice to the adverse party only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a
verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in
writing any efforts made to give notice and
2

the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff meets neither requirement.

He has not served

the Complaint or his Motions or provided any reason why notice
should not be required.

He fails to certify in writing the

efforts he made to give notice to any defendant or prison
officials or provide reasons why such notice should not be
required.

Nor does he demonstrate that such notice is impossible

or fruitless.

See Reno Air Racing, 452 F.3d at 1131.

Plaintiff also fails to provide a sufficient statement
of specific facts showing he will suffer irreparable harm, loss,
or damage if injunctive relief is not granted.

For example,

Plaintiff alleges that his legal mail has been opened outside his
presence, but provides no details regarding this claim.
Mot., Doc. No. 6 (Motion for Confidentiality).

See

He fails to

provide the date(s) this allegedly occurred, the names of those
responsible, the circumstances surrounding this alleged
infraction, or explain what he means by “legal mail.”
But prison officials may open and inspect mail to
prisoners from courts and governmental agencies outside of a
their presence, because mail from courts, as opposed to mail from
a prisoner’s lawyer, is not considered “legal mail.”

See Keenan

v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d
1318 (9th Cir. 1998).

And, although opening and inspecting legal

3

mail may have an impermissible “chilling” effect on a prisoner’s
right to petition the government, see O’Keefe v. Van Boening, 82
F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996), Plaintiff’s ability to file his
Motions, Complaint, letter, and other documents with this court
does not suggest that his rights have been impaired or chilled.
Plaintiff is represented by counsel in his pending criminal
action, CR. No. 1:13-cr-00860 LEK.

If his legal mail is being

intercepted or interfered with in that action, his defense
attorney can and should raise this with the court.

Without more

details, however, the court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is
alleging an impermissible constitutional violation or simply
complaining about alleged rules infractions at the FDC.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief
regarding his requests for medical care appears moot because he
concedes he received medical attention when he notified Captain
Reiser of his requests.

See Doc. No. 7.

Plaintiff’s Motions

therefore provide no specific facts that clearly show that
“immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage” will result
before any prison official can be properly served with the
complaint and motions and be heard in opposition.

Id.

Plaintiff’s claims that his non-specific medical
requests were delayed and his unidentified mail was opened
outside of his presence present no “serious question” that he is
in danger of irreparable harm, the balance of hardships or

4

equities tip sharply in his favor, or that an injunction of any
sort is in the public interest.

See Winter v. Naturall Res. Def.

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); accord Sierra Forest Legacy
v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015,1021 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff’s Motion

for Injunction Relief for Confidentiality, Doc. No. 6, and Motion
for Injunction Relief, Doc. No. 7, are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, April 14, 2014.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

Adkins v. Unnamed, 14-00156 LEK/KSC; psa/tros/Adkins 14-156 lek; J:\Denise's Draft
Orders\LEK\Adkins 14-156 lek (mail, med).wpd

5