Jacob v. Houston
Filing
198
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Jacob's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 195) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEVEN M. JACOB,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4:10CV3073
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Steven Jacob’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order. (Filing No. 195.) For the reasons that follow, Jacob’s
motion will be denied.
At issue here is a prison memorandum dated December 30, 2015, which warns
inmates that any legal paperwork kept by them in a space in excess of two cubic feet
will be confiscated. Jacob claims this rule “would interfere with and perhaps
prevent” Jacob from complying with this court’s previously-entered order requiring
him to identify all documents he believes are missing from the state court records.
Jacob presented the court with a copy of the memorandum at issue (Filing No. 196
at CM/ECF p. 5), as well as a copy of the prison rules which he claims govern the
possession of legal materials in his unit (Filing No. 196 at CM/ECF p. 4).
The standards set forth by Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109
(8th Cir. 1981), apply to Jacob’s Motion. In Dataphase, the court, sitting en banc,
clarified the factors district courts should consider when determining whether to grant
a motion for preliminary injunctive relief:
(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance
between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict
on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on
the merits; and (4) the public interest.
Id. at 114. “No single factor in itself is dispositive; rather, each factor must be
considered to determine whether the balance of equities weighs toward granting the
injunction.” United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 1998).
“At base, the question is whether the balance of equities so favors the movant that
justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits are
determined. . . .” Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113.
Jacob did not address the Dataphase factors in his motion. However, to the
extent the court can analyze these factors without briefing from Jacob, the court finds
the factors do not favor Jacob to a degree sufficient to warrant issuance of preliminary
injunctive relief. Specifically, Jacob has not shown he faces irreparable harm. The
prison rules governing the possession of legal material in his unit plainly set forth that
legal materials exceeding two cubic feet “may be stored by the facility and made
available to the inmate as needed.” (Filing No. 196 at CM/ECF p. 4.) In other words,
Jacob may store and retrieve his legal papers as needed, even if his legal papers
exceed a space in excess of two cubic feet. The memorandum at issue does not create
a new rule, as Jacob suggests. Rather, it merely reinforces the rule concerning legal
materials within the cells and, among other things, advises inmates that, beginning
January 18, 2016, prison staff will search cells in order to ensure compliance with the
rules.
Furthermore, Jacob did not allege he will be unable to litigate this case if he is
required to keep some of his legal materials outside of his cell. Rather, he argues that
he may not be able to comply with the court’s deadline requiring him to identify all
documents that he believes are missing from the state court records. However, Jacob
may seek an extension of time if he needs to access legal materials located outside of
his cell.
2
Finally, federal courts are reluctant to intervene in the day-to-day operation of
state prisons, even when an inmate’s constitutional rights are implicated, unless the
challenged prison regulation is not reasonably related to legitimate penological goals.
See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 87 (1987). Nothing in Jacob’s motion suggests the
regulation at issue is not reasonably related to legitimate penological goals. For
obvious reasons, prisons must have some space limitations on the amount of property
inmates may possess within their cells.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Jacob’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Filing No. 195) is denied.
DATED this 25th day of January, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
3
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?