Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01409/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01409-7/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

KELVIN SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERRY LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv–01409-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(ECF No. 28)

Plaintiff Kelvin Sims is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 29, 2012, an order issued dismissing certain

claims and defendants and ordering Plaintiff to complete and return service documents within thirty

days. (ECF No. 27.) On April 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause upon

the warden due to lack of access to the law library. (ECF No. 28.) 

Plaintiff complains that he has not been granted access to the law library and without access

to research materials and copy service he cannot comply with the court’s order. At this juncture of

the action, Plaintiff need only to complete the service documents and return them to the court for

service. There are no deadlines requiring Plaintiff to need to do legal research. If Plaintiff needs

additional time in order to obtain copies, he is advised to file a motion for an extension of time.

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking a court order directing prison officials to provide him

access to the law library, for each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish

standing. Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503

(2010). This requires Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is

1

Case 1:10-cv-01409-BAM Document 29 Filed 04/23/12 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

concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;

it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a

favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129

S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

which provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

the court finds that such relief 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

The relief requested by Plaintiff is not related to the underlying claims that Defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Since the relief sought would not remedy the

violation of the Federal right at issue here, the Court cannot grant the requested relief and Plaintiff’s

motion for equitable relief shall be denied. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an orderto show cause, filed April 18, 2012, is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 23, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01409-BAM Document 29 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 2