WARD v. AVILES et al

Filing 16

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 6/18/12. (dc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________________
:
CHARLES WARD,
:
: Civil Action No. 11-6252 (WJM)
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
OSCAR AVILES, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
CHARLES WARD, Plaintiff pro se
#249219
B3E
Hudson County Correctional Center
35 Hackensack Avenue
Kearny, N.J. 07032
MICHAEL L. DERMODY, Counsel for Defendants
Office of Hudson County Counsel
Administration Building Annex
567 Pavonia Avenue
Jersey City, N.J. 07306
MARTINI, District Judge
Currently
temporary

pending before

restraining

this

Court

order/preliminary

Plaintiff Charles Ward (“Plaintiff”).

is

a request

injunction

for a

filed

by

(Docket Entry No. 8.)

Plaintiff brings the underlying action to recover damages under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for various issues related to his time at Hudson
County Correctional Center.
enter

a

temporary

Plaintiff requests that the Court

restraining

order/preliminary

injunction

requiring Defendants to give him extra time in the law library.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s
request for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order at
this time.
I.

BACKGROUND
In Plaintiff’s complaint, he alleges various issues relating

to the conditions of confinement at the Hudson County Correctional
Center.

Specifically,

he

alleges

that

the

law

library

is

inadequate because they do not teach inmates how to properly use
computers or conduct legal research. Further, there are not enough
supplies and the copy machine is in need of repair.

He also

alleges that there is no grievance procedure at Hudson County
Correctional Center and grievances often go unanswered.

Plaintiff

also states that handbooks containing the rules and regulations of
the prison are often times not handed out to incoming prisoners.
Plaintiff further alleges that the air duct system in the
prison facility is extremely dirty and in need of cleaning.

He

states that the temperature in the facility was very cold during
the summer and some prisoners did not have adequate clothing for
the

temperature.

Plaintiff

states

that

there

is

no

indoor

recreation area, and outdoor recreation is limited to one hour per
day and is often cancelled.

Plaintiff also states that the food is

often served below room temperature and there is not enough variety
to the meals.

2

Plaintiff further alleges that there is no linen exchange and
clothes and sheets are only able to be laundered three times per
week. In addition, Plaintiff states that the inmates are not given
utensils, cups, socks, or long-sleeved shirts for use in their
cells.

Plaintiff states that the items available for purchase at

the commissary are sold at sometimes double their price.

Finally,

Plaintiff also alleges that there are no shelves or storage lockers
or hooks in the cells.
After Defendants filed an answer to his complaint, Plaintiff
filed

the

instant

request

for

a

temporary

restraining

order/preliminary injunction seeking to compel the Defendants to
permit him extra time in the law library.

In response, Defendants

state that due to the size of the jail, inmates must go to the
library on a schedule that allows for all inmates to have law
library time.

(Docket Entry No. 9.)

As such, Defendants state

that Plaintiff is receiving all library time that can reasonably be
provided for him, under the circumstances.
II.

(Id.)

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy, which should
be granted only in limited circumstances.”

Novartis Consumer

Health v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharms. Co., 290 F.3d
578, 586 (3d Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted).

To

secure the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction or

3

temporary restraining order, plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1)
he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in
irreparable harm; (3) granting the injunction will not result in
irreparable harm to the defendants; and (4) granting the injunction
is in the public interest.”

Maldonado v. Houston, 157 F.3d 179,

184 (3d Cir. 1998)(as to a preliminary injunction); see also Ballas
v. Tedesco, 41 F.Supp.2d 531, 537 (D.N.J. 1999) (as to temporary
restraining order).

A plaintiff must establish that all four

factors favor preliminary relief.

Opticians Ass'n of America v.

Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a
“reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation.”
Bennington Foods LLC v. St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLP, 528 F.3d
176, 179 (3d Cir. 2008) (quotation and citation omitted). In
evaluating whether a movant has satisfied this first part of the
preliminary injunction standard, “[i]t is not necessary that the
moving party’s right to a final decision after trial be wholly
without doubt; rather, the burden is on the party seeking relief to
make a prima facie case showing a reasonable probability that it
will prevail on the merits.”

Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142, 148 (3d

Cir. 1975).

4

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief relates solely to
his law library time, which appears to be a claim that he is being
denied

access

to

the

courts

Fourteenth Amendment rights.

in

violation

of

his

First

and

Courts have recognized different

constitutional sources for the right of access to the courts.
Principally, the right of access derives from the First Amendment's
right to petition and the due process clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments.1

The right of access to the courts requires

that “adequate, effective, and meaningful” access must be provided
inmates who wish to challenge their criminal charge, conviction, or
conditions of confinement.
(1977).

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822

In other words, prison officials must “give prisoners a

reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of
fundamental constitutional rights to the Courts.”

Id. at 825.

“‘[T]he touchstone ... is meaningful access to the courts.’”
Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021, 1037 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting
Bounds, 430 U.S. at 823) (internal quotation omitted).

1

The right of access to the courts is an aspect of the First Amendment
right to petition. McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482 (1985); Bill
Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 741 (1983); Milhouse v.
Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981). The Supreme Court also found that
“[t]he constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the
requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to
challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their
constitutional rights.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 419 (1974),
overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989).
See also, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523 (1984) (“prisoners have the
constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of their
grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts”);
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576
(1974). The right of access to the courts might also arise under the Sixth
Amendment's right to counsel; however, under the circumstances of the present
case, the Sixth Amendment clearly is not implicated.

5

In Bounds, the Supreme Court held that “the fundamental
constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison
authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of
meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law
libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.”
The right of access to the courts is not, however, unlimited.

“The

tools [that Bounds] requires to be provided are those that the
inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or
collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their
confinement. Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply
one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences
of conviction and incarceration.”

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

355 (1996) (emphasis in original).

Similarly, a pretrial detainee

has

a

right

of

access

to

the

courts

with

respect

to

legal

assistance and participation in one's own defense against pending
criminal charges.

See, e.g., May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 883-84

(7th Cir. 2000); Caldwell v. Hall, 2000 WL 343229 (E.D. Pa. March
31, 2000).
Moreover, a prisoner alleging a violation of his right of
access must show that prison officials caused him past or imminent
“actual injury” by hindering his efforts to pursue such a claim or
defense.

See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348-51, 354-55 (1996); Oliver v.

Fauver, 118 F.3d 175, 177-78 (3d Cir. 1997).

“He might show, for

example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for failure to

6

satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies
in the prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have
known. Or that he had 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 to file even a
complaint.”

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.

Here, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on any
claim of denial of access to the courts.

By his own admission,

Plaintiff is permitted time in the prison library.

Moreover,

Plaintiff has not shown that prison officials caused him past or
imminent “actual injury” by hindering his efforts to pursue such a
claim or defense.

Rather, he appears to simply be requesting more

time and is being denied said time by prison officials.

He has not

shown any injury and as such, he cannot meet the first prong
necessary

to obtain

a

temporary

restraining

order/preliminary

injunction.
2.

Remaining Factors
Because Plaintiff has not show a likelihood of success with

respect to his claim, the Court need not address the remaining
factors in connection with its motion. As such, Plaintiff’s motion
will be denied. American Exp. Travel Related Services Co., Inc. v.
Sidamon-Eristoff, 2010 WL 4722209, at *50 (D.N.J. November 13,
2010) (citing Morton v. Beyer, 822 F.2d 364, 371 (3d Cir. 1987)

7

(“[A] failure to show a likelihood of success ... must necessarily
result in the denial of a preliminary injunction.”))
III.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request

for injunctive relief.

An appropriate order follows.

DATED:6/18/12
s/William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI
United States District Judge

8