Dragusica v. Robles et al
Filing
17
FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion For A Preliminary Injunction Be Denied (ECF No. 8 ), Objections Due Within Fifteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/17/2011. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 7/18/2011. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ROBERT FRANCIS DRAGUSICA,
10
11
Plaintiff,
v.
12
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
BE DENIED
ROLANDO DIA ROBLES, et al.,
13
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00363-LJO-SMS PC
Defendants.
(ECF No. 8)
/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS
14
15
Plaintiff Robert Francis Dragusica (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
16
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint
17
in this action on March 3, 2011, alleging that he is being denied medical care for his serious medical
18
condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed
19
a motion for preferred legal status at the law library. (ECF No. 8.)
20
Plaintiff is requesting the Court order North Kern State Prison to supply him with legal
21
research materials, legal copies, legal supplies, and access to the prisoner’s Lexus Database no less
22
than one hour per week. (Motion for Preferred Legal User and Legal Materials 2:7-23, ECF No. 8.)
23
The Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations on injunctive relief. Section 3626(a)(1)(A)
24
provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions
25
shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular
26
plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court
27
finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation
28
of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
1
1
right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
2
Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a claim based upon lack of access to the law library or
3
limited access to legal materials. In the absence of a viable claim based on the lack of access to the
4
law library or materials, Plaintiff may not seek an injunction mandating the law library allow him
5
access or legal supplies.1 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct.
6
1142, 1149-50 (2009) (citation omitted); Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1112 (9th Cir.
7
2004).
8
9
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a court order
granting him preferred legal status, filed March 17, 2011, should be denied.
10
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
11
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)
12
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
13
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
14
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
15
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
16
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated:
icido3
June 17, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
In addition, CDCR itself is immune from suit. Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147
(9th Cir. 2007).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?