Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 

BOARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00757-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST 

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

AND/OR STAYING ACTION AND TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

(Doc. 48) 

I. Background

Plaintiff, Louis V. Rodriguez, ("Plaintiff") a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2012. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Cox, Terrell, and Cavazos

("Defendants") on an Eighth Amendment claim for the excessive use of force against Terrell and 

Cavazos and on a First Amendment claim of retaliation against Cox, Terrell, and Cavazos.

A. Plaintiff's Motion

On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Obstructions and Denials of Meaningful 

Access to the Courts’ seeking an order directing prison officials to facilitate his access to both his 

legal materials and the law library or a stay of all proceedings until his difficulties are rectified and 

to appoint counsel. (Doc. 48.) This notice is construed as a motion by Plaintiff seeking injunctive 

relief, requesting a stay, and to appoint counsel.

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 4
1

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

2

 1. Preliminary Injunction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy 

before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are 

further limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires 

that the Court find the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to 

correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 

violation of the Federal right.@ 

Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

officials in general or over Plaintiff=s mail issues. 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 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction 

against any of the Defendants who remain in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction 

if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may 

not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States 

Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s 

motion must be denied for lack of jurisdiction over the "prison officials" who Plaintiff asserts are 

obstructing his access to his legal materials and the law library.

Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he 

believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The issue is not that 

Plaintiff=s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if sought in the proper 

forum. The seriousness of Plaintiff=s accusations concerning obstructing Plaintiff's access to his 

legal materials and the law library cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel 

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 05/27/14 Page 2 of 4
1

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

Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the 

core of Article III=s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction 

bears the burden of establishing its existence.@) This action is simply not the proper vehicle for 

conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks. 

 2. Stay of Proceedings

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is 

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 

1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of 

every court to manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the 

matter at hand). This is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh 

competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. In determining 

whether a stay is warranted, courts consider the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the 

hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the judicial resources that 

would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if the case before the 

court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962). 

Plaintiff requests a stay the proceedings in this action until he is able to access his legal 

materials. However, this action is already two years old. The potential prejudice to Defendants to 

indefinitely stay an action complaining of events that occurred over five years ago is high. It is 

understood that inmate plaintiffs encounter a number of difficulties in prosecuting their actions pro 

se. To that end, as long as good cause is shown, requests for extension of time to file requisite 

documents with the Court are routinely granted and there are no reasons to assume at this stage 

that any rulings will be made to the contrary should Plaintiff make the requisite showing. Further, 

indefinitely staying this action would not save judicial resources or avoid duplicative litigation. 

To the contrary, allowing an aging case to indefinitely languish with inactivity would 

inappropriately congest the Court's docket and calendaring system. Finally, as stated above, 

Plaintiff is not without remedy as he may attempt to state cognizable claims in a new action if he 

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 05/27/14 Page 3 of 4
1

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

4

believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action.

 3. Appointing Counsel

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 

represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 

circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district Court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, this case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record 

in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

II. Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive relief, requesting a stay, and to appoint 

counsel, filed April 23, 2014 (Doc. 48), is HEREBY DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 05/27/14 Page 4 of 4