Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00468/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00468-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. STOLL, et al.,

Defendants.

1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER REQUESTING ASSISTANCE OF 

LITIGATION COORDINATOR

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR 

WRITING SUPPLIES AND ACCESS TO 

THE LAW LIBRARY FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION 

(Doc. 8)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

1983. On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for an order directing the Warden at Salinas 

Valley State Prison to provide him "pro-se writing supplys [sic] such as ink pen filler, writing 

paper and envelopes required for litigation of this above entitled case, furthermore to provide 

Plaintiff with access to [sic] law library." (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff states that the supplies have not been 

made available to him since December of 2014. (Id.) This motion is construed as a motion 

seeking injunctive relief. 

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 

Case 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 07/09/15 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

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.@ 

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

officials in general or over the issues raised in Plaintiff's motion. 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599 F.3d 

at 969.

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

any of the Defendants named 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 Warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. 

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. Plaintiff=s 

accusations concerning his inability to obtain writing materials and access to the law library 

cannot and do not overcome the jurisdictional bar. Steel 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 the relief Plaintiff seeks. 

Case 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 07/09/15 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

While Plaintiff is not entitled unlimited access to a law library and/or the resources 

necessary to prepare optimal legal filings, he must be allowed access to resources sufficient to 

enable him to prepare and file his response to the order to show cause as to why this action should 

not be dismissed. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). This necessarily includes 

access to writing material and the law library. The Court recognizes that prison administrators 

"should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and 

practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to 

maintain institutional security." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. 

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). Accordingly, the Court shall defer to the prison's policies 

and practices in granting access to the law library and issuing writing materials to pro se inmates. 

However, the Litigation Office is requested to look into the matter and facilitate Plaintiff=s access 

to writing materials as provided for indigent inmate as well as his access to the law library and 

other legal resources to the extent necessary to allow Plaintiff to complete and file his response to 

the order to show cause.

1

 The deadline for Plaintiff's response to the order to show cause has 

already been extended forty-five days to allow the Litigation Office sufficient time to address this 

matter and to allow Plaintiff time thereafter to complete the task of drafting and filing his

response. (See Doc. 12.)

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Litigation Office at Salinas Valley State 

Prison is requested (1) to investigate Plaintiff=s ability to obtain writing materials for indigent 

inmates and (2) to facilitate Plaintiff=s access to the law library and to any other available legal 

resources to the limited extent necessary for Plaintiff to complete and file his response to the 

pending order to show cause; and the Clerk's Office shall serve a copy of this document and the 

order that issued on July 2, 2015 (Doc. 12)2on the Litigation Office at Salinas Valley State 

Prison.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s motion for an order directing 

 

1 How access is best facilitated in light of Plaintiff=s housing status and other custody or classification 

factors is left to the sound discretion of prison officials.

2 The July 2nd order erroneously ordered the Clerk's Office to serve a copy of it on the Litigation Office at 

CSATF.

Case 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 07/09/15 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

the Warden at Salinas Valley State Prison to provide Plaintiff with pro se writing supplies and 

access to the law library, filed April 4, 2015 (Doc. 8), be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 4