Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01820/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01820-3/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

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

MARCO PEREZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. G. ADAMS,

 Defendant.

1:11-cv-01820-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT 

ORDER ALLOWING ACCESS TO THE 

LAW LIBRARY

(Doc. 22.)

Marco Perez (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action 

on November 1, 2011. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the original Complaint against 

defendants Schneider, Carter, Pimental, and Byrum for use of excessive force and deliberate 

indifference to medical needs.1 (Id.)

On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing prison officials 

to allow him access to the law library. (Doc. 22.) “A federal court may issue an injunction 

[only] 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). Here, the order Plaintiff 

 

1 On June 18, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from 

this action, for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 9.)

Case 1:11-cv-01820-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

seeks would require present actions by persons who are not defendants in this action and would 

not remedy any of the excessive force or medical claims upon which this action proceeds. 

Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s 

motion must be denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court 

order allowing him access to the law library is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01820-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 2