Lear v. Manasrah

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED re 18 MOTION requesting an Order from the Court for Prison to timely process request for Library Access; Honor and Process all Court Order; Ord er Prison not to with hold any mail from the Court ; referred to Judge Drozd; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Office to send a copy of this Order to Litigation Coordinator at Plaintiff's Institution and Court request the assistance of the Litigat ion Coordinator in facilitating the Plaintiff's access to the law library, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 05/22/17. Objections to F&R due 14-Day Deadline (Copy of this order sent to Litigation Coordinator at HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 A. MANASRAH, 15 Defendant. Case No. 1:17-cv-00071-DAD-MJS (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF NO. 18.) FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 16 17 18 CLERK TO SEND COPY OF THIS ORDER TO LITIGATION COORDINATOR AT PLAINTIFF’S INSTITUTION 19 20 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 21 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff brings what the Court 22 construes as a motion for injunctive relief requesting Plaintiff’s institution: (1) Timely 23 process his requests for library access; (2) Timely process all court orders; and 24 (3) Cease withholding or delaying mail pertaining to his case. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff is 25 currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). He bases this motion on 26 his alleged denial of access to the law library at HDSP and his institution’s alleged 27 withholding and/or delay of mail related to this matter. 28 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on April 5, 2017. (ECF No. 15.) 1 The Court subsequently dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC with leave to amend. (ECF No. 21.) In 2 its screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s FAC, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not 3 properly identified Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. Accordingly, 4 the Court regarded Defendant A. Manasrah, the only individual specified as a 5 Defendant and named in the caption of Plaintiff’s FAC, as the sole Defendant properly 6 pleaded under Rule 10. 7 Manasrah is not an official at HDSP, Plaintiff’s current institution. Rather, 8 Manasrah is an official at California State Prison, Corcoran. Thus, as Plaintiff already 9 has been advised (ECF No. 11), any requests for injunctive relief against Manasrah 10 would appear to be moot. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 11 Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 12 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). 13 Additionally, the Court previously severed and transferred Plaintiff’s claims 14 against officials at HDSP to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California 15 under Federal Rule 21 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). (ECF No. 9.) As the Court stated in its 16 Order for severance and transfer, ECF No. 9, HDSP is in Lassen County, which lies in 17 the Sacramento Division of this Court. As Plaintiff already has been advised, the Court 18 does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would require directing parties 19 not before the Court, such as officials at HDSP, to take action. Zepeda v. United States 20 Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court 21 may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 22 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 23 before the court.”). (ECF No. 11.) Accordingly, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff his 24 requested relief at HDSP. 25 The Court will, however, ask the Clerk’s Office to send this Order to the Litigation 26 Coordinator at Plaintiff’s institution, and will request the Litigation Coordinator’s 27 assistance in providing Plaintiff access to his institution’s law library as expeditiously as 28 possible. The Court will also request that the Litigation Coordinator assist Plaintiff in 2 1 gaining access to legal materials and facilitate the mailing of materials related to 2 Plaintiff’s matter as practicably and expeditiously as possible. 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Litigation 4 Coordinator at Plaintiff’s institution; and 5 6 2. The Court requests the assistance of the Litigation Coordinator at 7 Plaintiff’s institution in facilitating Plaintiff’s access to the law library, his 8 legal materials, and the mailing of materials pertaining to this matter. 9 Additionally, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 10 relief (ECF No. 18) be DENIED. 11 The findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 13 Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendations, 14 Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised 16 that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 17 on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 18 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 22, 2017 /s/ 22 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 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?