Hinsberger v. Cox et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DANIEL LEE HINSBERGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. JOHN COX, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00029-SLG
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
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
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 5-1.
3 Docket 5-2.
Case 3:19-cv-00029-SLG Document 6 Filed 03/27/19 Page 1 of 7

Case No. 3:19-cv-29-SLG, Hinsberger v. Cox, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 2 of 7
‘…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
4 Docket 5 at 1.
5 Docket 5 at 2.
6 Docket 5 at 2.
7 Docket 5 at 3.
8 Docket 5 at 3.
9 Docket 5 at 1.
Case 3:19-cv-00029-SLG Document 6 Filed 03/27/19 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 3:19-cv-29-SLG, Hinsberger v. Cox, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 3 of 7
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
10 Sierra Forest Legacy v. Ray, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
11 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis
in the original).
12 Id. at 1131-32.
13 Sierra Forest, 577 F.3d at 1022; citing United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-
op, 833 F.2d 172, 175 (9th Cir. 1987).
14 See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821
(1977), limited in part on other grounds by Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354; Entler v. Gregoire, 872
Case 3:19-cv-00029-SLG Document 6 Filed 03/27/19 Page 3 of 7

Case No. 3:19-cv-29-SLG, Hinsberger v. Cox, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 4 of 7
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[.]”).
15 Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828; see also Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 562, 655 (9th Cir. 2009).
16 Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
17 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 356-57.
18 Id. at 256.
19 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349; Madrid, 190 F.3d at 996.
20 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348 (citation and internal quotations marks omitted).
Case 3:19-cv-00029-SLG Document 6 Filed 03/27/19 Page 4 of 7

Case No. 3:19-cv-29-SLG, Hinsberger v. Cox, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 5 of 7
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,
21 See Docket 5 and Docket 5-1.
22 See Docket 5-2.
23 See Docket 5.
24 Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006); see also Noble v. Adams, 646 F.3d 1138,
1143 (9th Cir. 2011) (as amended) (explaining that courts should “defer to prison officials’
judgment so long as that judgment does not manifest either deliberate indifference or an
intent to inflict harm.”); Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987) (providing that deference
to prison officials is even greater when state prison officials are defendants in federal
court.).
Case 3:19-cv-00029-SLG Document 6 Filed 03/27/19 Page 5 of 7

Case No. 3:19-cv-29-SLG, Hinsberger v. Cox, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 6 of 7
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 THERFORE ORDERED.
1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief at Docket 5 is DENIED.
2. 	The Prisoner’s Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee at
Docket 3 is GRANTED. 	The Court will issue a separate order with
directions for filing fee collection.
3. The Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis at Docket 4 is DENIED.
25 Alaska Dept. of Corrections Policy 808.12 “Photocopying for Prisoners” (January 25,
2013).
Case 3:19-cv-00029-SLG Document 6 Filed 03/27/19 Page 6 of 7

Case No. 3:19-cv-29-SLG, Hinsberger v. Cox, et al.
Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 7 of 7
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Mr. Hinsberger with a docketed
copy of his legal filings in this case.
DATED this 26th day of March, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:19-cv-00029-SLG Document 6 Filed 03/27/19 Page 7 of 7