Williams v. Cate, et al.

Filing 131

ORDER DENYING 129 Motion for Return of Property, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/28/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN B. WILLIAMS,
Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 LJO JLT (PC)

12
13

Plaintiff,
ORDER
DENYING
MOTION
RETURN OF PROPERTY.

v.

14

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

15

FOR

Defendants.

(Doc. 129).

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se an in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has recently filed a motion for relief in which he

19

asks this Court to issue an order for “the return of all his legal properties and preparation and

20

mailing supplies,” including a typewriter. (Doc. 129.) Plaintiff further requests that he receive

21

“no penalty for failure to prosecute or answer matters” and that no deadlines be made against him.

22

Presumably, Plaintiff makes the latter request because he does not currently possess his previous

23

legal materials and supplies. (Doc. 129). Plaintiff’s motion also “notes” that he had been denied

24

access to the law library. (Doc. 129 at 2). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is

25

DENIED.

26

In April and July of 2010, Plaintiff filed similar motions in which he asked this Court to

27

order his legal property returned to him and complained about being denied access to the law

28
1

1

library. (Doc. 32 and 52). The Court’s order in response to those motions advised Plaintiff,

2

among other things, that Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and therefore must have

3

before it an actual case or controversy. (Doc. 64 (citing City of Los Angeles v Lyons, 461 U.S.

4

95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State,

5

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

6

it has no power to hear the matter in question. (Doc. 64 (citing Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102).

7

Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter on his claims against Defendants Wegman, Gonzales,

8

Howard, Ortiz, and Bradley regarding alleged obstruction of Plaintiff’s religious practices. (See

9

Docs. 17 & 26.) Thus, as the Court explained in its February 9, 2011 order (responding to

10

Plaintiff’s prior motions,) the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s new

11

allegations regarding his legal property. Moreover, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over

12

Correctional Officer Rankin or any other prison officials allegedly responsible for Plaintiff’s

13

missing property. (Doc. 129 at 1). As a result, the Court is without authority to provide Plaintiff

14

the relief his requests.

15

With regard to the law library and Plaintiff’s concern about pending deadlines, Plaintiff is

16

informed that prisoners do not have a freestanding right to a law library or to legal assistance.

17

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Law libraries and legal assistance programs are only

18

the means of ensuring that a prisoner’s fundamental right to access the courts is preserved. Id.

19

The accessibility or adequacy of a law library is therefore of constitutional concern only when it

20

thwarts a prisoner from exercising his right to access the courts for the purpose of seeking redress

21

for claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights. Id. (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430

22

U.S. 817, 825 (1977)). The prisoner must demonstrate that he suffered actual injury because of

23

deficiencies in law library access or materials, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to

24

present a claim in a direct appeal, habeas petition, or a 1983 action. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348, 355.

25

Here, discovery has closed, Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment,

26

Plaintiff has filed his Opposition to Defendants’ motion, and there do not appear to be any

27

pending deadlines. If the issues raised by Plaintiff in his motion impede his ability to timely

28

respond any future Court deadline in this action, Plaintiff must seek immediately an extension of
2

1

time from the Court, explain the circumstances and demonstrate good cause for the extension.

2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief, including his request for

3

return of all his legal properties, mailing supplies, typewriter, and access to the law library (Doc.

4

129) is DENIED.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

8

June 28, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3