United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SHARON
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Self-represented
prisoner Daniel Lee Hinsberger initiated a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 31,
2019.[1] On February 20, 2019, he filed a
“Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief for Legal
Copies of All Filings, and Plaintiff's Hinsberger's
First Declaration” at Docket 5. Mr. Hinsberger also
submitted two exhibits with his motion. Exhibit 1 is a
memorandum dated January 28, 2019, regarding law library
access protocols for the Fox Module of Spring Creek
Correctional Center.[2] Exhibit 2 is Mr. Hinsberger's signed
Modified Housing Unit agreement.[3]
Mr.
Hinsberger enumerates 10 paragraphs in his motion. First, he
states “(1) Legal Copies of all my filings into this
Court are needed so that I can ‘…pursue...'
‘…litigation…' in this
‘…civil…' case[.][4] The second, third
and fourth paragraphs addresses complaints made by other
prisoners.[5] In paragraph five, Mr. Hinsberger writes
that he is being denied access to the general population law
library and that written requests to use the segregation unit
library are being “ignored.”[6] Paragraphs six
through nine allege statements made by corrections personnel
regarding ongoing civil prisoner lawsuits.[7] Lastly in
paragraph ten, Mr. Hinsberger tells the Court that another
prisoner intends to file a sexual harassment lawsuit in state
court against one of the defendants in this case to challenge
the current library access protocols.[8]
For
relief, Mr. Hinsberger does not specify a specific action of
the named defendant that he seeks to enjoin. As noted above,
in paragraph one, he does request “(1) Legal Copies of
all my filings into this Court are needed so that I can
‘…pursue...'
‘…litigation…' in this
‘…civil…' case[.][9]
DISCUSSION
The
Court interprets Mr. Hinsberger's requests for
“legal copies of all my filings into this
Court[.]” as the sole remedy he seeks. Mr. Hinsberger
is not explicit about what action he seeks to enjoin. To the
extent that Mr. Hinsberger also seeks to enjoin library
access protocols, he has not demonstrated that he is entitled
to such preliminary injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs
seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish that
“(1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they
are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their
favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public
interest.”[10] Under this standard, “plaintiffs
must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not
just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary
injunction.”[11] In the Ninth Circuit, a sliding scale
analysis may be applied in weighing factors (1), the
likelihood of success on the merits, and (3), the balance of
equities.[12] Injunctive relief is an equitable
remedy, and “[t]he essence of equity jurisdiction is
the power of the court to fashion a remedy depending upon the
necessities of the particular case.”[13]
Prisoners
have a constitutional right to access the
courts.[14] This right “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.”[15] However, this right is
“quite limited” and prisoners need only to have
“the minimal help necessary” to file legal
claims.[16] The right turns not on “the
capability of turning pages in a law library, ” but of
“the capability of bringing contemplated challenges to
sentences or conditions of confinement before the
courts.”[17] Prison officials may select the best
method to ensure that prisoners will have these
capabilities.[18]
To
establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a
prisoner must establish that he has suffered an actual
injury.[19] An “actual injury” is
“actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or
existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing
deadline or to present a claim.”[20]
Mr.
Hinsberger provides an official memorandum to Fox Module
residents regarding new protocols for using the Law Library
in the Segregation Unit as well as Mr. Hinsberger's
housing agreement. Mr. Hinsberger does not plainly state F.3d
1031, 1039 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The most fundamental of
the constitutional protections that prisoners retain are the
First Amendment rights to file prison grievances and to
pursue civil rights litigation in the courts[.]”). what
or who is causing the action he seeks to have enjoined. It
appears that Mr. Hinsberger objects to the fact that he must
undergo an invasive security search in order to access the
law library. But it appears Mr. Hinsberger has access to the
segregation law library.[21] Moreover, Mr. Hinsberger is living
voluntarily in a modified housing unit. He knew that security
protocol and program access would be different from other
units.[22] Additionally, Mr. Hinsberger does not
present an actual harm-how the lack of access has prevented
him from filing suit, caused him to miss a court deadline, or
some other articulable, irreparable harm.[23] Mr.
Hinsberger appears to suggest that this Court should override
Spring Creek's security protocols; however, Courts must
give great deference to prison officials when considering
prison regulations.[24]
When
analyzed through the lens of a preliminary injunction, Mr.
Hinsberger is unlikely to prevail on the merits, because no
constitutional violation has been demonstrated. There is no
showing of irreparable harm. Due to deference, the balance of
equities rests with the prison officials establishing
prisoner schedules, program access, and security protocols.
Additionally, on these facts, there is no showing a
preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Therefore,
Mr. Hinsberger's motion for preliminary injunctive relief
must be denied.
For the
reasons explained above, Mr. Hinsberger cannot prevail on the
merits, and therefore, his Motion for Preliminary Injunctive
Relief, at Docket 5, is DENIED.
Mr.
Hinsberger requests this Court grant him legal copies of all
his legal filings. The Department of Corrections has a
process and policy regarding legal copies for prisoners and
an accommodation for indigent prisoners.[25] Regardless,
the Court grants his request and the Clerk of Court is
directed to provide Mr. Hinsberger one copy of his legal
filings in this case. If additional copies are requested,
they will be provided at a cost of 50 cents per page.
IT
IS ...