(PC) Saunders v. Fairman, et al, No. 1:2002cv05806 - Document 127 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 124 Request for his Legal Publications, Construed as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/13/2010. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 8/6/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Saunders v. Fairman, et al Doc. 127 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JASON SAUNDERS, 6 7 CASE NO. 1:02-CV-05806-OWW-DLB PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR LEGAL PUBLICATIONS, CONSTRUED AS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 8 M. JOHNSON, et al., 9 Defendants. (ECF NO. 124) / 10 11 Plaintiff Jason Saunders (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 12 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 13 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed an addendum to Defendants’ 14 response regarding Plaintiff’s legal property. On July 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for 15 extension of discovery date and time for opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 16 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State Prison-Lancaster (“CSP-LAC”). 17 Plaintiff contends that he has not received all his legal publications, which appears to refer to 18 legal treatises owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not claim that he has no access to the law library 19 at CSP-LAC. Rather, Plaintiff contends that the law library at CSP-LAC is inadequate, and 20 without his legal treatises, he cannot effectively litigate this action, including discovery and 21 opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 22 The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the law library at CSP-LAC is 23 inadequate for the purposes of litigating his lawsuit. Prisoners clearly have a constitutional right 24 of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). However, Plaintiff is not 25 constitutionally entitled to a specific methodology to litigate his action. See id. at 356-57 26 (finding prisoners entitled to “adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained 27 in the law” (emphasis in original) (quoting Bounds v, Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977), limited in 28 part on other grounds by Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff is in effect seeking the imposition of injunctive relief on prison officials at CSP- 2 LAC. “A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the 3 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights 4 of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 5 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff’s claims arise from events at California Substance Abuse Treatment 6 Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California. The Court lacks jurisdiction to impose any 7 injunction on CSP-LAC prison officials by this action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 8 RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for his legal publications, construed as a motion for 9 preliminary injunction, be DENIED. 10 Because the Court had yet to adjudicate Plaintiff’s request for legal publication, the 11 undersigned will recommend granting Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time in part. The 12 undersigned recommends that the discovery cut-off date be extended eighty days from the date of 13 adjudication of these Findings and Recommendations. If the Judge assigned to this action 14 adopts the Findings and Recommendations, the undersigned recommends the following schedule. 15 Plaintiff will have twenty days after the adjudication of these Findings and Recommendations to 16 serve Defendants with discovery requests. Defendants will then have thirty days in which to 17 serve their responses. Motions to compel, if any, must be filed by the discovery cut-off date. 18 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 19 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty 20 (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 21 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 22 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 24 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 3b142a July 13, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
