Hilson v. Arnett et al

Filing 52

ORDER Requesting Assistance of CCI Litigation Coordinator in Facilitating Plaintiff's Law Library Access; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 51 Request for an Order Directing Access to the Law Library signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 09/10/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RASHEED HILSON, SR., Case No. 1:15-cv-01240-DAD-MJS (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 JESSE ARNETT, et al., 14 ORDER REQUESTING ASSISTANCE OF CCI LITIGATION COORDINATOR IN FACILITATING PLAINTIFF’S LAW LIBRARY ACCESS 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY 17 (ECF No. 51) 18 FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE Defendants. 15 19 20 21 CLERK TO SERVE COPY OF THIS ORDER ON CCI LITIGATION COORDINATOR 22 23 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 24 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds against 25 Defendants Arnett, Gamboa, Potzemitz, Flores, and Jane Doe for excessive force and 26 Defendant CL Marsh for failure to protect, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 27 (ECF No. 18.) All of Plaintiff’s claims arose while he was housed at California State 28 Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-COR”). (ECF No. 16.) 1 I. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Procedural Background Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California, but brings claims for acts arising at CSP-COR. On August 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a Court order to allow Plaintiff monthly access to the law library. (ECF No. 51.) This motion is construed as seeking injunctive relief directing action by a non-party. II. Discussion Plaintiff asks the Court to order that he be provided monthly access to the prison law library to enable him to conduct discovery in this case. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or enable it to provide relief that is not the subject of the operative complaint. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which the action proceeds. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. A court should not issue an injunction when the relief sought is not of the same character as that sought in the underlying action and the injunction deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the underlying action. De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). Moreover, while A[a] federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, here Plaintiff=s motion must be denied because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over officials at CCI and, in any event, the requested relief is not of the same character as that requested in Plaintiff’s complaint. Nevertheless, the Court is cognizant that Plaintiff’s ability to access the law 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 library may impact his ability to timely and effectively litigate this action. Accordingly, the Court will request the assistance of the Litigation Coordinator at CCI in ensuring that Plaintiff is afforded adequate opportunities to access the law library, to the extent doing so is consistent with institutional order and security. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970)). The Clerk’s Office will be directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Coordi nator. III. Conclusion, Order, and Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk's Office shall serve a copy of this document on the Litigation 10 11 Coordinator at CCI; and 2. The Litigation Coordinator’s assistance is requested in facilitating Plaintiff’s 12 13 14 access to the law library; and Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing CCI to provide Plaintiff with access to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 the law library (ECF No. 51) be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. The Court’s findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: September 10, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 3

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?