(PC) Kunkel v. Dill et al, No. 1:2009cv00686 - Document 91 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 86 , and Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 42 45 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/15/11. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Kunkel v. Dill et al Doc. 91 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 PATRICK KUNKEL, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00686-LJO-SMS PC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 6 v. 7 N. DILL, et al., 8 (Docs. 42, 45, 86) Defendants. 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 10 (Doc. 88) 11 / 12 13 Plaintiff Patrick Kunkel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 14 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the 15 first amended complaint filed on October 8, 2009, against Defendants Garcia, Mendoza, Araich, 16 Mackey, Robaina, Dileo, Dill, Pfeiffer, Ali, and Zamora for deliberate indifference to medical needs 17 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction on June 1, 2010. A 20 second motion seeking a preliminary injunction was filed on June 21, 2010. On February 7, 2011, 21 the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations1 which was served on the parties and 22 which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were 23 to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on 24 March 3, 2011, stating he wished to drop all issues of unlimited copying, envelopes, papers and pens. 25 He is now seeking a preliminary injunction alleging he is being denied adequate access to the law 26 27 1 28 The Court notes that the findings and recommendations referenced documents number 42 and 46, however the correct documents are number 42 and 45. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 library. Plaintiff states that due to the prison being on lock down he has only been allowed access 2 to the law library three times since November 17, 2010, for two hours each time. 3 Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring prison officials to allow him weekly access to the law 4 library. The Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations on injunctive relief. Section 5 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison 6 conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a 7 particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless 8 the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 9 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 10 the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 11 The pendency of this action does not give the court jurisdiction over prison officials in 12 general or over Plaintiff’s access to the law library. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 13 1142, 1148-49 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The incidents 14 alleged in the objections to findings and recommendations are not related to the pending action and 15 do not involve these defendants. The court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and 16 to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 129 S. Ct. at 1148-49; 17 Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Therefore Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction shall be denied. 18 Plaintiff is advised that if additional time is needed to prepare pleadings in this action due to limited 19 access to the law library he should file a motion for an extension of time. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 21 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 22 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 7, 2011, is adopted in full; and 25 2. Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order filed June 1 and 21, 2010 and 26 March 3, 2011are DENIED. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 Dated: March 15, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 2 1 b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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 28 3
]]>
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.
