Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00202/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00202-6/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

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. TOLSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

“PRIORITY LEGAL USER” STATUS

(Doc. 34)

Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels III, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12132, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). On October 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking “Priority Legal 

User” status for the duration of this case.

The Court is well aware of the challenges faced by prison officials and prisoners relating to 

the allocation of resources, and law library access and other issues related to litigation are taken 

into consideration when granting extensions of time. The Court cannot, however, grant Plaintiff 

“Priority Legal User” status. The Court lacks jurisdiction to do so and additionally, federal courts 

must refrain from interfering with the day-to-day management of prisons, a category in which 

determinations regarding law library access squarely fall. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546-47, 

99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878 (1979); Griffin v. Gomez, 741 F.3d 10, 20-1 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969) (“a court has no

power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the 

Case 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB Document 37 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 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

2

defendant”); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (a 

the federal court “may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for “Priority Legal User” status is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB Document 37 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2