Harrison v. Linde, et. al.
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/18/2012 DENYING 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel; DENYING 15 Motion for court-ordered allowance to purchase a typewriter. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CARL F. HARRISON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
No. 2:12-cv-2000 KJM CKD P
vs.
13
SERGEANT LINDE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
/
15
16
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint
17
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s motions filed on October 12, 2012 and October 15,
18
2012 are before the court.
19
Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme
20
Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent
21
prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In
22
certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
23
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);
24
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court
25
does not find that exceptional circumstances exist. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
26
counsel will therefore be denied.
1
1
In his motion requesting the appointment of counsel, plaintiff further states he is
2
being denied access to courts at California State Prison- Sacramento. Plaintiff requests that CSP-
3
Sacramento be ordered to (1) return his legal material and personal property; (2) give him regular
4
access to the law library; (3) see that his legal copies be made by the librarian rather than
5
inmates; and (4) provide him with three ink pens per week and 20 sheets of legal paper per day.
6
In a separate motion, plaintiff additionally requests a court order allowing him to purchase and
7
keep a typewriter in his cell and to bar prison officials from taking the typewriter away for
8
disciplinary reasons.
9
An inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the
10
courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-821 (1977). This right encompasses more than
11
access to an adequate law library: it includes access to “paper and pen to draft legal documents
12
with notarial services to authenticate them, and with stamps to mail them.” Id. at 824-25. To
13
prevail, however, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial; he must also show
14
“actual injury” from the denial or delay of services. The Supreme Court has described the actual
15
injury requirement as follows:
16
17
18
19
20
[T]he inmate therefore must go one step further and demonstrate
that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance
program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. He might
show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for
failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of
deficiencies in the prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not
have known. Or that he suffered arguably actionable harm that he
wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied by
inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a
complaint.
21
22
23
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996).
Here, plaintiff’s motion is not specific as to the nature of his legal material that
24
prison officials are allegedly withholding, nor to any specific injury that he has suffered as a
25
result. In addition, to any extent prison officials have denied him legal materials or services, it is
26
clear that denial has not blocked him from filing the instant motions or other requests for relief in
2
1
this case. Under these circumstances, the court finds that plaintiff has not shown actual injury
2
from the alleged denial of materials and services at this time.
It is further noted that plaintiff does not name the prison officials who are
3
4
allegedly withholding legal materials or services from him. As a general rule, this court is unable
5
to issue an injunctive order against individuals or entities who are not parties to the suit pending
6
before it. See Zenigh Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969).
7
Likewise, if the injury caused by the alleged deprivation hinders plaintiff from pursuing a claim
8
other than the ones alleged in this case, the deprivation and injury are not redressable in this case.
9
See, e.g., Benyamini v. Manjuano, 2011 WL 4963108 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011) (“This Court
10
lacks jurisdiction to issue an order requiring prison officials to transfer [plaintiff] based on
11
retaliatory acts occurring after this action was filed, because the Court does not have such a case
12
or controversy before it in this action. [Citations.]”).
Finally, to the extent plaintiff asks this court to order the California Department of
13
14
Corrections or CSP- Sacramento to do certain things or to refrain from doing certain things,
15
plaintiff is advised that these entities are not parties to this action, and as stated, the court
16
generally has no jurisdiction over them for such purposes. See Zenigh Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at
17
110.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
18
19
plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and for court order (Dkt.No. 14) and motion for
20
typewriter (Dkt. No. 15) are DENIED.
21
Dated: October 18, 2012
22
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
8
harr2000.31.misc
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?