Tutor v. Oregon Department of Corrections (O.D.O.C.) et al
Filing
16
ORDER: Denying Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 10 ); Denying Motion for a Protective Order 10 ); Denying Motion 11 . Signed on 10/11/2012 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (gw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOHN ALLEN TUTOR,
1:12-cv-1549
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
HOGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff,
an
inmate
in
the
custody
of
the
Oregon
Department of Corrections filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
ยง
1983 alleging that defendants are violating his civil rights
by improperly denying him sentence reductions via "good time
credits."
Plaintiff now moves for injunctive relief "to block any
acts that are, or could be construed as, acts of retaliation
against" him. Injunction/Protection Order (#10).
In order to establish entitlement to injunctive relief,
plaintiff
1
-
ORDER
must
demonstrate
that
he
has
sustained
or
is
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a
result of the challenged official conduct, and the injury must
be "real and immediate" not "conjectural" or "hypothetical."
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983).
In this case, plaintiff has not alleged that he has been
retaliated against for filing this lawsuit or that defendants
have
thr.eatened
retaliate
or
against.
otherwise
indicated
Therefore,
an
intention
plaintiff's
request
to
for
injunctive relief is denied.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion "In Lieu of Appointment
of Counsel"
(#11)
which can be construed as a request for
preliminary equitable relief.
Plaintiff's motion seeks an order requiring defendants to
provide him with a panoply of computer and other supplies
"due to the fact he is handicapped by the insufficient law
library, access to the court." (Sic)
Inmates have a constitutional right of meaningful access
to the courts.
Lewis v.
Casey,
518 U.S.
343,
350
(1996).
However, a prisoner's right of access to the courts does not
"require the maximum or even the optimal level of access."
Bounds v.
Smith,
430 U.S.
817,
F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987).
821-23; King v. Atiyeh,
814
The objective of the Supreme
Court's access requirements was to remove barriers to court
access
that
2 - ORDER
imprisonment
erected,
not
to
grant
inmates
advantages
not
shared by the
general
unimprisoned public.
Hooks v. Wainwright, 775 F.2d 1433, 1436-37 (11th Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 913 (1986).
Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts to establish
that he has been or is being denied access to the courts.
Assuming plaintiff could
courts,
he
cannot
establish a denial of access to the
establish
entitlement
to
the
extensive
computer and word processing equipment he seeks in his motion.
Plaintiff's Motions (#10) and (#11) are denied.
DATED this
3 - ORDER
//lfday
of October, 2012.
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?