Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Tijerina v. Carver, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction requested by Dan Henry Tijerina, a prisoner. Tijerina filed a motion seeking to prohibit the Utah Department of Corrections from confiscating his legal materials or denying him access to courts. The district court denied the injunction, noting the prison's policy of requiring inmates to catalogue excess legal materials and access them in limited amounts was a reasonable security measure, and Tijerina failed to show the policy was unreasonably applied to him. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's reasoning for denying the preliminary injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Tijerina v. Carver, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction requested by Dan Henry Tijerina, a prisoner. Tijerina filed a motion seeking to prohibit the Utah Department of Corrections from confiscating his legal materials or denying him access to courts. The district court denied the injunction, noting the prison's policy of requiring inmates to catalogue excess legal materials and access them in limited amounts was a reasonable security measure, and Tijerina failed to show the policy was unreasonably applied to him. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's reasoning for denying the preliminary injunction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-04-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-4276

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction requested by Dan Henry Tijerina, a prisoner. Tijerina filed a motion seeking to prohibit the Utah Department of Corrections from confiscating his legal materials or denying him access to courts. The district court denied the injunction, noting the prison's policy of requiring inmates to catalogue excess legal materials and access them in limited amounts was a reasonable security measure, and Tijerina failed to show the policy was unreasonably applied to him. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's reasoning for denying the preliminary injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    19 views3 pages

    Tijerina v. Carver, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction requested by Dan Henry Tijerina, a prisoner. Tijerina filed a motion seeking to prohibit the Utah Department of Corrections from confiscating his legal materials or denying him access to courts. The district court denied the injunction, noting the prison's policy of requiring inmates to catalogue excess legal materials and access them in limited amounts was a reasonable security measure, and Tijerina failed to show the policy was unreasonably applied to him. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's reasoning for denying the preliminary injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    April 14, 2006


    Elisabeth A. Shumaker

    Clerk of Court

    DAN HENRY TIJERINA,


    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.

    No. 05-4276
    (D.C. No. 2:04-CV-935-PGC)

    SCOTT V. CARVER,

    (D. Utah)

    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Appellant, a prisoner appearing pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
    1983. Appellant filed a motion for injunctive relief, requesting a restraining order
    prohibiting the Utah Department of Corrections from confiscating his legal

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    *

    materials or denying him access to the courts. He alleged that on May 30, 2005,
    prison officials required [him] to catalogue all his legal materials and place any
    excess materials into storage, thereby allowing [him] to access only a limited
    quantity of materials at a time. Order, 2 (D. Utah Sept. 23, 2005). Appellant
    asserts that this policy limits his right to access the courts.
    The district court issued an order denying him injunctive relief. Id. at 3. In
    this interlocutory appeal, Appellant claims that he was wrongfully denied a
    preliminary injunction. We review a district courts denial of injunctive relief for
    abuse of discretion. Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (10th Cir. 2002).
    The district court explained that it is well aware of the Utah State Prisons
    legal access polices and its practice of requiring inmates with excessive amounts
    of legal materials to catalogue and access them a limited amount at a time.
    Order, supra, at 2. The court stated that this practice had been determined a
    reasonable security measure. Id. at 2-3. In addition, the court noted that
    Appellant had failed to allege any facts showing that the policy has been
    unreasonably applied in his case. Id. at 3.
    We grant Appellants motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
    appeal. We remind Appellant of his obligation to continue to make partial
    payments of his filing fee until paid in full. We have carefully reviewed the
    briefs of Appellant and Appellee, the district courts disposition, and the record
    -2-

    on appeal. 1 We are in accord with the district courts denial of issuance of a


    preliminary injunction, and, for substantially the same reasons set forth by the
    district court in its September 23, 2005, order, we AFFIRM the district courts
    denial of injunctive relief.
    Entered for the Court

    Monroe G. McKay
    Circuit Judge

    At this time, we deny Appellees motion for summary disposition based on


    lack of appellate jurisdiction, which we also construe Appellee having conceded
    in its brief.
    1

    -3-

    You might also like