Helfrich v. Cox et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 7 Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 8 Emergency Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/26/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

PETER JASON HELFRICH,
Plaintiff,

9
JAMES GREG COX, et al.,

Defendants.

12
13

ORDER

v.

10
11

Case No. 2:15-CV-00384-JCM-PAL

Presently before the court are pro se

s

14

for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.1 (Doc. ## 7 and 8). As of this date, the

15

defendants have not filed responses to either motions.2

16

s ask the court to enjoin defendants from denying plaintiff access to the

17

indigent legal supplies he claims are being denied him. (See Doc. # 8). Few of these allegations

18

are in his amended complaint (doc. # 3). In particular, plaintiff alleges in the motions that several

19

legal boxes that were rightfully his were damaged or destroyed during his transfer from High

20

Desert State Prison to Lovelock Correctional Center, and a handbook on habeas practice was

21

removed without his consent.(Doc. # 8 at 4-5). He further alleges that several affidavits, some of

22

which cannot be reproduced, are missing. (Id.). Finally, plaintiff alleges that prison officials have

23

routinely failed to supply him with adequate envelopes, stamps, paper, and access to the law

24
25
26
27
28

1

Mr. Helfrich has requested a telephonic hearing and oral argument on the preliminary
injunction motion. Because the court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to
the relief requested, the court will not hold a hearing at this time.
2

assed. Because
plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested as a matter of law, however, the court finds the
motions ripe for decision.

1

library. (Id.). This is the only allegation included in the complaint independently of the motions.

2

Plaintiff commenced this action on March 3, 2015, by filing with the court an application

3

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 2, 2007.

4

original complaint alleged three claims for relief. Count 1 was an equal

5

protection claim related to allegedly unequal treatment between prisoners like plaintiff, designated

6
7

prisoners. Count 2 was an Eighth Amendment challenge in which plaintiff alleges that prison

8

officials failed to protect him from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Finally, count 3 was a

9

Constitutional challenge in which Mr. Helfrich invoked his Constitutional right of access to the

10

courts. He alleged that prison officials were charging inmates for paper and pens, obstructing

11

access to the law library, and failing to provide persons trained to assist with research.

12

The court issued a screening order on July 5, 2015. (Doc. # 2). The order dismissed all

13

claims with respect to certain defendants, allowed count 1 to stand with respect to other defendants,

14

and dismissed counts 2 and 3, including the only allegations related to unconstitutional denial of

15

access to the courts without prejudice. The order granted Mr. Helfrich leave to file an amended

16

complaint.

17

On August 7, 2015, Mr. Helfrich filed an amended complaint. (Doc. ## 4; 4-1). With

18

respects to counts 1, 2, and 3, plaintiff did not actually amend his complaint, but rather re-submitted

19

it. He filed identical allegations and points and authorities alongside a few additional exhibits.

20

(Compare doc. # 3 with doc. # 4; 4-1). Plaintiff alleges 3 new causes of action in the complaint

21

however.3 Count 4 is a claim related to the nutritional deficiencies of prison meals. Mr. Helfrich

22
23

to improve its food quality. (See doc. # 4-1 at 33). Count 5 is a retaliation claim in which plaintiff

24

asks the cou

25

disciplinary hearing. (See doc. # 4-

26
27
28

3

Plaintiff labels these new claims for relief as counts 5, 6, and 7. The court cannot,
however, find count 4. The court therefore will refer to the counts labeled 5, 6, and 7, as counts 4,
5, and 6, respectively.
2

a book he purchased and had shipped to the prison.

1
2

Plaintiff requests that the court compel defendants to provide the book. (See doc. # 4-1 at 68).

3

The court first finds that it cannot grant the relief Mr. Helfrich seeks with respect to counts

4

1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 because the relief requested in those counts is of a different character than the

5

relief requested in the instant motion, and deals with matters lying outside the issues in those

6

claims. See De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220, 65 S. Ct. 1130, 1134, 89

7

L. Ed. 1566 (1945). This court cannot grant a preliminary injunction for relief now based on claims

8

for which it could not later issue a permanent injunction enjoining the same conduct. Id. The only

9

count that seeks relief of the same character is count 3.

10

for granting the motions is the relief requested therein.
An identical version of count 3 to that in the amended complaint has already been

11
12

dismis

13

Supreme Court has stated that courts must consider the following elements in determining whether

14

to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction: (1) a likelihood of success on

15

the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) balance of

16

hardships; and (4) advancement of the public interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

17

The test is conjunctive, meaning the party seeking the injunction must satisfy each element.

18

The

Here, there is no likelihood of success on the merits. The claim has already been screened,

19

and was summarily dismissed. (See

20

the same defects, namely that plaintiff fails to provide specific details of denials of access to the

21

courts and fails to allege any actual injury supporting standing. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

22

349 (1996); (Doc. # 2). The claim will not, therefore, proceed beyond the screening process.

23

Because the likelihood of success on the merits is essentially non-existent, the court will not

24

consider the other Winter factors

nied.

25

Accordingly,

26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff Peter Jason

27
28

DENIED.
3

emergency motion for

1
2
3

temporary restraining order (doc. # 8) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED THIS 26th day of October, 2015.

4
5

JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4