United States District Court, D. Kansas
CROW SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this prisoner civil
rights action. This matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff's motion for an injunction (Doc. 5), and Motion
for Access to Court, Law Library, Legal Materials, and Legal
Copies, Legal Calls (Doc. 6). Plaintiff alleges that he is
“currently in the SHU they will not accommodate
[him].” (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff alleges that his access to
the law library is limited, as well as his access to legal
materials, pens and copies. Plaintiff alleges that he has
been instructed to request copies from his Unit Team, however
“since they are the defendants in this matter they
refuse also because of prior engagement.” (Doc. 6, at
1.) Plaintiff alleges that staff are not allowing him to call
the circuit clerk or attorney, and are not processing legal
mail. Plaintiff asks the Court to require staff to give
Plaintiff access to the law library at least two times per
week; to require legal copies and legal mail to be processed
in a timely fashion; to provide access to paper, forms and
pens as needed; and to stop further tampering of legal mail.
obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
demonstrate four things: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3)
that the balance of the equities tip in the movant's
favor; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest.
Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir.
2010). “[A] showing of probable irreparable harm is the
single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction.” Dominion Video Satellite,
Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1260
(10th Cir. 2004).
allegations do not establish that injury is certain and not
theoretical, or more than merely feared as liable to occur in
the future. “To constitute irreparable harm, an injury
must be certain, great, actual and not theoretical.”
Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1189
(10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). A
preliminary injunction is only appropriate “to prevent
existing or presently threatening injuries. One will not be
granted against something merely feared as liable to occur at
some indefinite time in the future.” State of
Connecticut v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 282 U.S.
660, 674 (1931).
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff
is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A preliminary
injunction is appropriate only when the movant's right to
relief is clear and unequivocal. Schrier v. Univ. of
Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2005). Moreover, a
federal court considering a motion for preliminary injunctive
relief affecting the conditions of a prisoner's
confinement must give “substantial weight to any
adverse impact on public safety” and on prison
operation. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Finally, a mandatory
preliminary injunction, such as the one sought by Plaintiff,
which requires the non-moving party to take affirmative
action, is disfavored and therefore requires the moving party
to make a heightened showing of the four factors above.
Little, 607 F.3d at 1251.
preliminary injunctions and TRO's are drastic
remedies-“the exception rather than the rule-plaintiffs
must show that they are clearly and unequivocally entitled to
relief.” Adrian v. Westar Energy, Inc., No.
11-1265-KHV, 2011 WL 6026148, at *3 (D. Kan. 2011) (citations
omitted). The movant must also establish a relationship
between the injury claimed in their motion and the conduct
alleged in the complaint. Id.; see also Hicks v.
Jones, 332 Fed.Appx. 505, 507-08 (10th Cir. 2009)
(affirming denial of injunctive relief where movant sought
relief on “a matter lying wholly outside the issues in
[his] suit”). Any claim Plaintiff may have regarding
access to the courts is unexhausted and fails to allege an
injury. See Proch v. Baker, Case No. 14-3021-CM,
2017 WL 2793922, at *7 (D. Kan. June 28, 2017) (citing
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (violations
of the constitutional right of access to the courts require a
showing of injury due to the deprivation); Sterling v.
Edwards, 881 F.Supp. 488, 490 (D. Kan. 1995) (there must
be prejudice)). Plaintiff has failed to allege an injury. In
fact, he was able to file his Complaint (Doc. 1), a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), a response
to the Court's notice of deficiency (Doc. 4), two motions
for injunctive relief (Docs. 5, 6), a motion for extension of
time (Doc. 7), his six-month account statement (Doc. 9), as
well as three other actions pending before the Court.
See Case Nos. 18-3219, 18-3232, and 18-3208.
Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to make a
heightened showing that entry of a preliminary injunction is
warranted; he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on
the merits such that his right to relief is clear and
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for
an injunction (Doc. 5) and Motion for Access to Court, Law
Library, Legal Materials, and Legal Copies, Legal Calls (Doc.
6) are denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
 In Case No. 18-3208, Respondent filed
a Response (Doc. 6), which includes an objection to
Petitioner's motion for an injunction. Respondent notes
that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claim regarding
access to the courts through the BOP's four-part
administrative remedy program codified at 28 C.F.R. §
542. Respondent also alleges that “Petitioner has