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)

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