(PC) Hammler v. Wright

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALLEN HAMMLER, No. 2:15-cv-01645-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER J. WRIGHT, 15 Defendant.

17 This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Allen Hammler’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion for Order [28 U.S.C. § 1615(a)]” and “Ex Parte Motion for Order to Facilitate Filings of Motions In Limine and Other Motions.” (ECF Nos. 157, 158.) Plaintiff’s motions concern his ability to adequately prepare for trial which is set to commence on January 13, 2020. (See ECF No. 134.) In the first motion, Plaintiff seeks access to a telephone, stating that he needs access to a phone in order to acquire the pens and legal pads he wishes to use at trial. (ECF No. 157.) In the second motion, Plaintiff seeks assistance in accessing copies in preparation for trial and submitting motions in accordance with the Court’s Final Pretrial Order. (ECF No. 158.)

25 Defendant J. Wright (“Defendant”) has opposed these motions. (ECF Nos. 160, 161.) Construed as requests for preliminary injunctive relief and/or relief under the All Writs Act, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED for the reasons discussed herein.

28 /// 1 Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 3 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. A plaintiff must “make a showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test to obtain a preliminary injunction. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

10 Under the All Writs Act, federal courts have the authority to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. 1651(a).

13 Plaintiff’s motions do not meet either of these standards. This case proceeds to trial on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant, not on any claim regarding access to adequate legal supplies. (See ECF No. 106; see also ECF No. 158 at 3–4 (Plaintiff complains in his supporting declaration of actions by non-parties and issues pertaining to “matters unrelated to this instant case. . .”).) Thus, Plaintiff’s motions necessarily fail to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question on the merits. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Further, Plaintiff’s motions fail to demonstrate that the requested court intervention is “necessary” for the proper administration of justice. 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). To the contrary, the very fact that Plaintiff subsequently submitted multiple pretrial filings demonstrates he has sufficient access to pens and paper and the ability to file motions. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 171–172 (reply briefings), 175–176 (in limine motions), 177 (proposed voir dire), 184 (objections to trial exhibits).) Indeed, despite his complaint about lacking access to copies, Plaintiff’s motion makes clear that he has such access.

25 (See ECF No. 158 at 3 (“. . . to obtain copies of documents I must give them to c/o Ramos to be taken to the library where the librarian porter makes the copies . . .”).) Thus, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he requires or is entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.

28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 157, 158), construed as requests for preliminary injunctive relief and/or relief under the All Writs Act, are DENIED.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: January 8, 2020