Downing v. Graves et al

Filing 64

ORDER Denying 29 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
12
CURTIS L. DOWNING,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
JOHNNIE GRAVES, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

2:12-cv-00332-JCM-CWH
ORDER

18

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Curtis L. Downing’s motion for preliminary

19

injunction. (Doc. # 29). Defendants have responded (doc. # 47) and plaintiff has replied (doc. # 57).

20

I.

Background

21

Plaintiff is a prisoner currently in custody at the Southern Desert Correctional Center. Plaintiff,

22

a self-described “jailhouse lawyer”, alleges that he is the subject of a conspiracy between the law library

23

supervisor, Rashonda Smith, and correctional officer “Mesa” (no first name given). Plaintiff maintains

24

that Smith and Mesa have conspired in an effort to prevent him from assisting fellow inmates in filing

25

lawsuits challenging their convictions, in violation of his and others’ First Amendment rights. More

26

specifically, plaintiff alleges that Smith and Mesa have intentionally arranged the law library scheduling

1

sessions in a manner that makes it impossible for plaintiff to meet with the inmates he is assisting, and

2

that they have confiscated various legal materials belonging to plaintiff and the inmates he is assisting.

3

II.

Legal Standard

4

As an initial matter, the court acknowledges that the complaint was filed pro se and is therefore

5

held to less stringent standards. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se

6

is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

7

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal quotations and citations

8

omitted). However, “pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than

9

parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986)

10

With respect to preliminary injunctions, the Supreme Court has stated that courts must evaluate

11

the following factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable injury if

12

preliminary relief is not granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) advancement of the public interest.

13

Winter v. N.R.D.C., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374–76 (2008).

14

III.

Discussion

15

Plaintiff moves the court to order the detention center to return the allegedly confiscated

16

materials, and seeks a determination that the prison’s policies regarding library access and legal materials

17

serve no legitimate penological purpose, but are instead intended to make it more difficult for prisoners

18

to access the courts. Plaintiff essentially seeks a court order requiring that the prison make it easier for

19

him to assist other inmates in the research, drafting, and filing of lawsuits.

20

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he enjoys any likelihood of success on the merits. Even

21

liberally construing his pleadings, it appears the crux of plaintiff’s dispute regards his “constitutional

22

right” to assist other inmates in their own lawsuits.

23

The Supreme Court has declared that “when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’

24

constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”

25

Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 229 (2001)(citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). The

26

detention center’s scheduling of library access and limit on the number of inmates that may access the

2

1

library at one time are meant to ensure the safety and security of the institution, and therefore are

2

legitimate penological interests. As such, plaintiff does not enjoy a likelihood of success on the merits

3

of his claims, and his motion for an injunction is denied.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for a

6
7

preliminary injunction (doc. # 29) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
Dated April 8, 2014.

8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3