Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02173/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02173-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW STAINER, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-2173 JAM DB P

ORDER & FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On February 23, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint regarding the denial of proper medical 

care. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff identified defendants Matthew Stainer, Dr. Bick, Dr. Ditomas, Dr. 

Dhillon, and Dr. McAllister as the defendants in this action. On May 3, 2016, the complaint was 

dismissed and plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. On June 13, 

2016, plaintiff was granted a 30-day extension of time to file that amended complaint. Currently 

before the court are plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time to file an amended 

complaint and his “Motion for Contempt of Court.” 

In this Motion for Contempt of Court, plaintiff complains about his access to the law 

library and appears to argue that he was fired from his job at the library for improper reasons. In 

this motion for contempt, plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1500 against each defendant 

identified in the caption to that motion for “intentionally interfering with physical meaningful 

Case 2:15-cv-02173-JAM-DB Document 23 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 5
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

access to the courts.” Each of those defendants is not a defendant to the present, above-entitled 

action. Because plaintiff also argues he has inadequate access to the law library, the court 

construes his request as also seeking injunctive relief to provide him greater library access. 

With respect to plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to damages and to the extent he is 

alleging he was improperly fired from his employment at the library, plaintiff may not raise those 

claims in this case because the people he alleges have caused him harm are not defendants in this 

action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is 

elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . . . resulting from litigation in which he is not 

designated as a party . . . .”). If plaintiff wishes to seek relief based on his library employment, he 

must file a separate action with those allegations. 

With respect to plaintiff’s argument that the prison should provide greater library access, 

plaintiff fails to show why injunctive relief is appropriate. In cases brought by prisoners 

involving conditions of confinement, a preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend 

no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the 

least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). “A plaintiff seeking 

a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in 

his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The principal purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to 

preserve the court's power to render a meaningful decision on the merits of the case, see 11A 

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010), 

that is, to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits, Sierra Forest Legacy v. 

Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1023 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Further, as stated above, an 

injunction against individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. Zenith Radio Corp.,

395 U.S. at 110. 

An inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the courts. 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820–21 (1977). However, there is no freestanding constitutional 

right to law library access for prisoners. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350–51 (1996). 

Case 2:15-cv-02173-JAM-DB Document 23 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Instead, law library access serves as one means of ensuring the constitutional right of access to 

the courts. See id. at 351. “[T]he Constitution does not guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a 

law library. Prison officials of necessity must regulate the time, manner, and place in which 

library facilities are used.” Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th 

Cir. 1985). A prisoner claiming that his right of access to the courts has been (or will be) violated 

due to inadequate library access must show that: (1) access was (or will be) so limited as to be 

unreasonable, and (2) the inadequate access caused (or will cause) actual injury. Vandelft v. 

Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994). A prisoner cannot make conclusory declarations of 

injury in alleging his access to the courts has been impeded. That is, it is not enough for an 

inmate to show some sort of denial of access and leave it at that. He must also show “actual 

injury” from the denial or delay of services. The Supreme Court has described the “actual injury” 

requirement: 

[T]he inmate ... must go one step further and demonstrate that the 

alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program 

hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. He might show, for 

example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for failure to 

satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies 

in the prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have known. 

Or that he suffered arguably actionable harm that he wished to 

bring before the courts, but was so stymied by inadequacies of the 

law library that he was unable even to file a complaint. 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. If the underlying action is frivolous, a plaintiff cannot make the 

necessary showing of actual injury. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). 

Plaintiff’s only specific argument about law library access is that the library is open just 

four hours per week. Plaintiff also states that he was told by staff “‘nothing says I have to allow 

you into the law library.’” However, he does not explain whether this occurred when the law 

library was otherwise open and accessible to others. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in the 

absence of preliminary injunctive relief he is likely to suffer actual injury in prosecuting his case. 

He fails to show that he requires greater library access to respond to the court’s order giving him 

leave to file an amended complaint. “Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury 

sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. 

Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has provided no basis for 

Case 2:15-cv-02173-JAM-DB Document 23 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 5
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

this court to interfere with the prison's administration of its law library, so his request for 

injunctive relief should be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 

to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 20) is granted. However, plaintiff is warned that no 

further extensions of time will be granted. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty 

days of the filed date of this order. If he fails to do so, the court will recommend dismissal of this 

action without prejudice.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion for contempt of court (ECF No. 22), construed 

as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).

Dated: August 31, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02173-JAM-DB Document 23 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/Diaz2173.libr acc

Case 2:15-cv-02173-JAM-DB Document 23 Filed 09/01/16 Page 5 of 5