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)

Download PDF
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?