The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LIBRARY ACCESS (ECF No. 18)
Plaintiff Darrell Dietle ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 17.)
On May 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion asking that the Court grant him access to the law library. (ECF No. 18.) The Court construes this as a motion for injunctive relief.
Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an "extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129
S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).
"[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted)
(emphasis in original). A party seeking a preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported by evidence. With respect to motions for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") provides that: [i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2)
Plaintiff asks the Court to order unspecified individuals to provide him with access to the law library. Plaintiff has not addressed the likelihood of his succeeding on the merits, he has failed to identify any imminent threat of irreparable harm if his request is not granted, he has not identified any looming deadlines or otherwise indicated why he might need immediate physical access to the law library, and he has presented no argument or evidence relating to the balance of equities, the public's interest, or whether the relief sought is the least intrusive means of preventing irreparable harm. In short, he has provided no basis upon which the Court could consider granting his motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...