Montanez v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Access To The Law Library (ECF No. 29 ) signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/20/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

PAUL MONTANEZ,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01931-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY

v.
(ECF No. 29)

12
13

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Paul Montanez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

17

first amended complaint against Defendant Grimm for deliberate indifference to medical needs in

18

violation of the Eighth Amendment. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for access to the

19

law library. (ECF No. 29.)

20

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

21

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

22

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

23

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

24

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An

25

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376

26

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

27

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

28

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before
1

1

it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,

2

1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,

3

454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or

4

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective

5

relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

6

requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary

7

to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

8

violation of the Federal right.”

9

In this instance the case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the

10

issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion, access to the law library, bears no relation to the

11

deliberate indifference to medical needs claims proceeding in this action. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102;

12

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1148-49 (2009);

13

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). Because the

14

case-or-controversy requirement cannot be met, the pendency of this action provides no basis upon

15

which to award Plaintiff injunctive relief. Id. Additionally, the relief that Plaintiff seeks would not

16

correct the violation of the Federal right at issue in this action. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

17
18
19
20

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for access to the law library, filed January 19, 2012, is
HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

January 20, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2