LAWRENCE PIERSOL, Chief District Judge
Pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 117). Plaintiff's request focuses on the number of photocopies allowed him by prison officials. Defendants appearing to-date oppose the motion (Docs. 121 and 122).
It is noted Plaintiff has previously sought the same relief in another case. See Cody v. Slykhuis, CIV. 04-4169 (Doc. 32) (DSD 2005). As in the previous case, no basis shown by Plaintiff would warrant a preliminary injunction. Under the four-part test in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) it is not shown that Plaintiff faces a threat of irreparable harm. Failure to prove irreparable harm is a sufficient reason to deny injunctive relief. Adam-Mellang v. Apartment Search, 96 F.3d 297, 299 (8th Cir. 1996). Moreover, "in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because `judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.'" Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518,520 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)).
Defendants also point out that on June 10, 2009, Plaintiff proposed that Defendants accept service electronically by the Court and not require a hard copy of documents Plaintiff files by mail. Defendants observe that they cannot change the prior court ruling, but that they would agree with that procedure. The local rules are in the process of amendment to allow for electronic service by the Court of pro se filings. Accordingly, that practice will be followed from this point forward in this case. The initiation of this practice further obviates any basis for an injunction in this action, even though an injunction would not have been granted in any event for the reasons initially stated.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 117) is DENIED.