Opinion
Civ. No. 00-5151 (DRD).
February 26, 2001.
Frank Pierro, Passaic County Jail, Paterson, New Jersey, Plaintiff Pro Se.
Robert J. Galluccio, Esq., Carmen Cortes-Sykes, Esq., Goodman, Galluccio Chessin, Paterson, New Jersey, Attorneys for Defendants.
OPINION
Plaintiff pro se, who is also proceeding pro se in (1) a pending criminal action for which he is currently detained at Passaic County Jail and (2) an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a complaint alleging that defendants Passaic County Jail, Sheriff Edwin J. Engelhardt, Passaic County Sheriff's Department, John Doe #1, and the County of Passaic ("defendants") have denied plaintiff access to the courts by, inter alia, denying him access to a typewriter, photocopy machine, certain materials, and by limiting his access to the law library. In his present motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff states that he has been denied access to an on-line computer, photocopy machine connected to the library's computer, that he is denied access to use of certified mail, return-receipt-requested mail, large manila envelopes, legal paper, and ink pens, and that defendants are manipulating the law library schedule to deny plaintiff access to the law library. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to permit him additional access to the library and access to materials to proceed in his criminal and civil actions.
A. Standard for a Preliminary Injunction.
Whether or not a court should grant a preliminary injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Penn Galvanizing Co. v. Lukens Steel Co., 468 F.2d 1021, 1023 (3d Cir. 1972). However, a court must always be mindful that an injunction is "an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only in limited circumstances." Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 800 (3d Cir. 1989).
In exercising its discretion, the court must be convinced that all four of the following factors favor preliminary relief: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the extent to which the moving party will suffer "irreparable harm" without injunctive relief; (3) the extent to which the nonmoving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is issued; and (4) the public interest. Clean Ocean Action v. York, 57 F.3d 328, 331 (3d Cir. 1995).
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
Prisoners have a fundamental right of access to the courts, which requires prison authorities to provide adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). Bounds did not, however, create an "abstract, free-standing right to a law library or legal assistance." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). An actual injury is a necessary element of all claims of violations of an inmate's right of access to the courts. Id.; Ingalls v. Florio, 968 F. Supp. 193, 202 (D.N.J. 1997). "Insofar as the right vindicated by Bounds is concerned, `meaningful access to the courts is the touchstone,' and the inmate therefore must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. "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 prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. Or that he had suffered 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." Id.
Plaintiff has not met this burden. He has failed to allege an actual injury. He has not stated that he has been unable to file pleadings in his criminal or civil actions. In fact, in the present case he filed a complaint, an amended complaint, the present motion, and other documents. There simply has been no showing of a likelihood of success on the merits in accordance with the standards set forth inLewis. Because plaintiff has failed to satisfy the first factor to be considered for granting a preliminary injunction, the remaining factors need not be considered.
Additionally, it is noted that although plaintiff's affidavit in support of the present motion for a preliminary injunction states that he has been denied access to white legal paper and pens, his affidavit is printed, in pen, on white legal paper labeled "affidavit in support of motion."
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. An appropriate order shall be entered.