J. KELLEY ARNOLD, United States Magistrate Judge
This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the Court are plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief. (Dkt. # 7). Plaintiff asks for wide ranging relief which includes:
1. An Order preventing his transfer to another facility, unit, or pod.
2. An Order preventing his being infracted for possessing items that have some sexually explicit material in it.
3. An Order allowing photo copies of sexually explicit items for use as exhibits in this case.
4. An Order preventing interference with the writing of his sexually explicit autobiography.
5. An Order forcing DOC to return plaintiff's autobiography.
6. An Order preventing rejection of incoming magazines.
7. An Order allowing plaintiff to use his mandatory savings to pay the filing fee in this action.
8. An Order allowing for stay of disciplinary sanctions pending appeal.
9. An Order preventing interference with legal mail.
(Dkt. # 7).
HISTORY
This action challenges prison officials authority to restrict what plaintiff can read or write. (Dkt. # 7 page 2 and 3). Plaintiff explains that over several years incarceration he has subscribed to a number of magazines and had many issues rejected because of an article or picture that defendants found to be sexually explicit.
In 1994 plaintiff began writing his detailed autobiography in which he described "in a detailed way" his sexual "adventures". When he tried to mail the material to 22 literary agents the items were rejected and confiscated by prison officials. Plaintiff then tried to mail materials home and was infracted. (Dkt. # 7 page 4).
A subsequent parole hearing resulted in a denial of parole based at least in part plaintiff's involvement with sexually explicit materials. (Dkt. # 7 page 5). Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of defendants policies and actions. He seeks immediate injunctive relief that goes directly to the merits of this action.
ANALYSIS
Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, "A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party's attorney only if . . . it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result. . . ." Fed R. Civ. P.65(b) (emphasis added). The basic function of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo ante litem pending a determination of the action on the merits. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com'n v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). A party seeking injunctive relief must fulfill one of two standards, the "traditional" or the "alternative." Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1987).
Under the traditional standard, a court may issue preliminary relief if it finds that (1) the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied; (2) the moving party will probably prevail on the merits; (3) the balance of potential harm favors the moving party; and (4) the public interest favors granting relief. . . . Under the alternative standard, the moving party may meet its burden by demonstrating either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.
Id. (citations omitted). In order to obtain injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate exposure to irreparable harm absent the requested judicial intervention.
Caribbean Marine Services Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).
Here, plaintiff has not shown any irreparable injury. Moreover, it is clear that plaintiff is primarily arguing the ultimate merits of this action. As noted above, an injunctive is used to preserve the status quo and to make sure a party is not exposed to irreparable harm absent the injunctive relief. Many of the incidents in the motion directly touch on fact or duration of confinement and are not cognizable in a civil rights action until and unless the issue has been decided in plaintiff's favor through a writ of Habeas Corpus or like state proceeding. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2373 (1994). The motions should be denied at this stage of the proceedings.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to show irreparable injury and is contesting fact or duration of confinement. The motions for injunctive relief go to the ultimate merit of the action and the Motions should be denied at this stage of the proceedings.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FRANKLIN D. BURGESS, United States District Judge
The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's Motion for injunctive relief, defendant's response, the Report and the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find and
ORDER:
(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;
(2) Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief are DENIED.
(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff counsel for defendants, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.