Jones v. Magallon

Filing 20

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Deny Plaintiff's Request for an Order Facilitating Law Library Access; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Second Motion to Extend Time to File Second Amended Complaint 19 ; ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Second Amended Complaint or Notice of Willingness to Proceed on Cognizable Claims, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/18/16. Referred to Judge Drozd; 14-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

1:15-cv-01897-DAD-MJS (PC)

HOLLIE JONES,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

Y. MAGALLON,

14

Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN
ORDER FACILITATING LAW LIBRARY
ACCESS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

15

(ECF No. 19)

16

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OR
NOTICE OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED
ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

17
18

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. He has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

23

On September 27, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint

24

and found certain claims cognizable. (ECF No. 16.) The remaining non-cognizable

25

claims were dismissed and Plaintiff was directed to either file a second amended

26

complaint within thirty days or file a notice that he was willing to proceed only on his

27

cognizable claims. (Id.) On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

extension of time to file his second amended complaint because of limited access to the
prison law library. (ECF No. 17.) On November 1, 2016, the Court granted in part
Plaintiff’s motion and directed Plaintiff to file his second amended complaint within thirty
days of the Court’s order. (ECF No. 18.) On December 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second
motion for a sixty day extension of time, again citing his limited access to the law library.
(ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff also requests the Court issue an order directing prison officials to
facilitate Plaintiff’s access to law library materials.

The court will construe the latter

request as a request for injunctive relief. (Id.)
I.

Law Library Access
Plaintiff’s claims arose at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility

in Corcoran, California. He is currently incarcerated at California State Prison (“CSP”) in

11
Corcoran. Plaintiff complains that he has insufficient access to the law library since he is
12
housed in the administrative segregation unit. He states this lack of library access
13
violates his right of access to the Courts. He seeks an order from the Court directing
14
prison officials to deliver law library materials to him in the administrative segregation
15
16
17
18

unit pursuant to the procedures outlined in California Code of Regulations section
3123(c). That section allows inmates who are unable to physically access the law library
to request legal material be delivered to them by library staff. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §
3123(c) (2009).

19

First, to the extent Plaintiff alleges CSP officials have violated Plaintiff’s rights by

20

limiting his access to the law library, such claims are unrelated to the claims in Plaintiff’s

21
22
23

complaint and are made against a non-party over whom the Court lacks jurisdiction in
this case.
A plaintiff may only sue multiple defendants in the same action if at least one

24

claim against each defendant arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series

25

of transactions or occurrences” and there is a “question of law or fact common to all

26

defendants.”); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir.1997); Desert Empire

27

Bank v. Ins. Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir.1980).

28
2

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The pendency of this action does

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over the relief requested
in Plaintiff's motion since it 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 this action is proceeding. 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, 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, 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

11
not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United
12
States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).
13
Plaintiff=s request must be denied.
14
II.

Extension of Time

15
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the extension he requests. Plaintiff’s
16
17
18
19
20

asserted need to access the law library in order to prepare his complaint is not
persuasive. At the screening stage, Plaintiff need only present facts showing that he is
entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Legal conclusions are not only unnecessary, they are discouraged. See Id. (noting that
while factual allegations are taken as true, legal conclusions are not.). Moreover,

21

applicable legal standards for Plaintiff’s claims were outlined in each of the Court’s two

22

previous screening orders. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension will therefore be denied.

23
24
25
26
27

III.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint
(ECF No. 19) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff must file his second amended complaint or notice of willingness to

28
3

proceed on his cognizable claims within fourteen (14) days of this order; and

1
2

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the undersigned recommending
this case be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

3
4
5

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
4. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing CSP officials to facilitate law library
access (ECF No. 19) be DENIED.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

These Findings and Recommendations 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
Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
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)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated:

December 18, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4