Nible v. Knowles, et al.

Filing 88

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 87 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/01/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

WILLIAM NIBLE,

9
10

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01716-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
(DOC. 87)

11
12

E. FLORES,
Defendant.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff William Nible (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant E.

18

Flores for interference with mail in violation of the First Amendment. On February 10, 2012, a

19

telephonic trial confirmation hearing was held before the undersigned. During the hearing,

20

Plaintiff made a motion on the record for priority legal user (“PLU”) access to the law library,

21

which was denied. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed

22

February 29, 2012. The Court construes the motion as one pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal

23

Rules of Civil Procedure.

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders of the district court.

25

The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds of:

26

“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party,

27

. . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for

28

reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time. Id.
1

1

Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

2

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v.

3

Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The

4

moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id.

5

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show

6

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

7

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

8

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

9

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

10

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to

11

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been

12

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571

13

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in

14

original).

15

Plaintiff contends that pursuant to state law, he has a due process right to receive access

16

to the law library as PLU status. The Court construes this as a request for preliminary injunction.

17

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the

18

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

19

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

20

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose

21

of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury

22

pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc.,

23

739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984).

24

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

25

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102

26

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,

27

454 U.S. 464, 471(1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

28

no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may
2

1

issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter

2

jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the

3

court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); see Fed.

4

R. Civ. P. 65(d) (listing persons bound by injunction).

5

Here, Plaintiff requests that the law librarian, Norman Olsen, and the warden Kelly

6

Harrington, of Kern Valley State Prison, be ordered to allow Plaintiff PLU status. Olsen and

7

Harrington are not parties before the Court, and are not persons bound as described in Rule

8

65(d). The Court thus lacks jurisdiction to determine the rights of persons not before the Court

9

and compel these individuals to act. A preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of

10

ensuring that plaintiff is able to litigate this action effectively or efficiently. The issuance of the

11

order sought by plaintiff in his motion would not remedy any of the claims alleged in this action.

12

Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order. Thus, the Court will not and

13

cannot grant a preliminary injunction for law library access. Plaintiff has presented no arguments

14

that would merit reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s previous motion.

15
16
17
18

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed
February 29, 2012, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

March 1, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3