1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 RICKY TYRONE FOSTER, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01511-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. ) REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 C. BAKER, et.al., ) ) [ECF No. 20] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 )
18 Plaintiff Ricky Tyrone Foster is a state prisoner pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s declaration, filed February 18, 2020. Plaintiff 21 contends that he is being subjected to retaliation and requests an order to stop the retaliation and to 22 grant him access to a typewriter and the law library. The Court construes Plaintiff’s declaration as a 23 request for a preliminary injunction. 24 I. 25 DISCUSSION 26 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural 27 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). For each form of relief sought in federal court, 28 Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield 1 v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under 2 threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and 3 imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the 4 defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury. 5 Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 6 Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 7 provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall 8 extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or 9 plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such 10 relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, 11 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. ' 12 3626(a)(1)(A). Thus, the federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue equitable 13 orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violations which 14 form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Steel Co. v. 15 Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (1998). 16 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must be denied. First, the relief that Plaintiff seeks is 17 different in kind from the that set forth in the operative complaint. The motion is based on retaliation 18 that has allegedly taken place after this action was filed. It is appropriate to grant a preliminary 19 injunction providing “intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally. 20 De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court should not issue an injunction 21 when the relief sought is not of the same character and the injunction deals with a matter lying wholly 22 outside the issues in the underlying action. Id. In addition, Plaintiff is seeking an order directed to a 23 non-party. The Court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would require 24 directing parties not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States Immigration & 25 Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it 26 has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 27 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). To the extent Plaintiff is asserting a 28 1 retaliation claim against the individuals named in his declaration, that claim must be brought in a 2 separate action. It cannot provide a basis for a preliminary injunction in this action. 3 With regard to Plaintiff’s claim for a court order directing access to a replacement typewriter, 4 Plaintiff’s request must be denied. There is no constitutional right to provide a typewriter in prisoner. 5 See, e.g., Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The 6 existence or condition of the library’s typewriters is irrelevant, as the Constitution does not require that 7 they be made available to inmates.”). 8 Lastly, Plaintiff’s request for a court order directing further access to the law library must also 9 be denied. Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 10 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 11 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that 12 he suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” 13 Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) 14 (internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis, 518 15 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 16 A prisoner cannot submit conclusory declarations of injury by claiming his access to the courts 17 has been impeded. Thus, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial of access without 18 further elaboration. Plaintiff must demonstrate “actual injury” from the denial and/or delay of access. 19 The Supreme Court has described the “actual injury” requirement: 20 [T]he inmate … must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a 21 legal claim. He might show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the 22 prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. Or that he suffered 23 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 even to file a complaint. 24 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 25 In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate “actual injury” by the failure of 26 access to law library. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in the absence of preliminary 27 injunctive relief he is likely to suffer actual injury in prosecuting his case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 RICKY TYRONE FOSTER, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01511-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. ) REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 C. BAKER, et.al., ) ) [ECF No. 20] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 )
18 Plaintiff Ricky Tyrone Foster is a state prisoner pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s declaration, filed February 18, 2020. Plaintiff 21 contends that he is being subjected to retaliation and requests an order to stop the retaliation and to 22 grant him access to a typewriter and the law library. The Court construes Plaintiff’s declaration as a 23 request for a preliminary injunction. 24 I. 25 DISCUSSION 26 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural 27 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). For each form of relief sought in federal court, 28 Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield 1 v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under 2 threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and 3 imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the 4 defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury. 5 Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 6 Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 7 provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall 8 extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or 9 plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such 10 relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, 11 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. ' 12 3626(a)(1)(A). Thus, the federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue equitable 13 orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violations which 14 form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Steel Co. v. 15 Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (1998). 16 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must be denied. First, the relief that Plaintiff seeks is 17 different in kind from the that set forth in the operative complaint. The motion is based on retaliation 18 that has allegedly taken place after this action was filed. It is appropriate to grant a preliminary 19 injunction providing “intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally. 20 De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court should not issue an injunction 21 when the relief sought is not of the same character and the injunction deals with a matter lying wholly 22 outside the issues in the underlying action. Id. In addition, Plaintiff is seeking an order directed to a 23 non-party. The Court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would require 24 directing parties not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States Immigration & 25 Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it 26 has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 27 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). To the extent Plaintiff is asserting a 28 1 retaliation claim against the individuals named in his declaration, that claim must be brought in a 2 separate action. It cannot provide a basis for a preliminary injunction in this action. 3 With regard to Plaintiff’s claim for a court order directing access to a replacement typewriter, 4 Plaintiff’s request must be denied. There is no constitutional right to provide a typewriter in prisoner. 5 See, e.g., Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The 6 existence or condition of the library’s typewriters is irrelevant, as the Constitution does not require that 7 they be made available to inmates.”). 8 Lastly, Plaintiff’s request for a court order directing further access to the law library must also 9 be denied. Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 10 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 11 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that 12 he suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” 13 Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) 14 (internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis, 518 15 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 16 A prisoner cannot submit conclusory declarations of injury by claiming his access to the courts 17 has been impeded. Thus, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial of access without 18 further elaboration. Plaintiff must demonstrate “actual injury” from the denial and/or delay of access. 19 The Supreme Court has described the “actual injury” requirement: 20 [T]he inmate … must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a 21 legal claim. He might show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the 22 prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. Or that he suffered 23 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 even to file a complaint. 24 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 25 In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate “actual injury” by the failure of 26 access to law library. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in the absence of preliminary 27 injunctive relief he is likely to suffer actual injury in prosecuting his case. “Speculative injury does 28 1 || not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean 2 || Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988), citing Goldies Bookstore, Inc. v. 3 || Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for injunctive 4 || relief should be denied. 5 Il. 6 RECOMMENDATION 7 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs request for 8 || injunctive relief, filed February 18, 2020, be DENIED. 9 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 11 || after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections 12 || with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 || Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time mz 14 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 15 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. Al fe 18 || Dated: _ February 19, 2020 OF 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28