Montanez v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 63

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Access To The Law Library (ECF No. 61 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/22/2013. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 2/25/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

PAUL MONTANEZ,

11
12
13

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY

v.
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

14

(ECF No. 61)

Defendants.
/

15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

violation of the Eighth Amendment and medical malpractice under state law. On January 17, 2012,

20

Plaintiff filed a motion for access to the law library.1 (ECF No. 61.)

21

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

22

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 55 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted).

23

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

24

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

25

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted).

26

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

27
1

28

Plaintiff previously filed a motion requesting access to the law library. (ECF No. 29.) The Court denied
the request on January 23, 2012. (ECF No. 30.)

1

1

at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

violation of the Federal right.”

12

In this instance, the case or controversy requirement cannot be met because the issue that

13

Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion, i.e., access to the law library, bears no relation to the

14

deliberate indifference claim proceeding in this action. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. §

15

3626(a)(1)(A); see also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1148-49 (2009); Steel Co.

16

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

17

controversy requirement cannot be met, the pendency of this action provides no basis upon which

18

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

19

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

20
21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for law library
access, filed January 17, 2013, be denied.

22

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

23

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

24

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

2

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

3

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

4

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

January 22, 2013

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3