Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675-24/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FUENTES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0675 FCD GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 7, 2006, motion for injunctive relief. 

On September 1, 2006, plaintiff filed a supplemental motion for injunctive relief. In these

motions, plaintiff alleges that he has received inadequate access to the law library, photocopying

and legal supplies.

The court construes plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief as a motion for a

protective order. Local Rule 72-302 of the Eastern District of California permits magistrate

judges to handle all aspects of a prisoner’s case short of jury trial. It has also been interpreted as

authorizing magistrate judges to issue orders under § 636(b)(1)(A) for non-dispositive motions or

motions not involving injunctive relief. See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673,

100 S. Ct. 2406, 2411 (1980) (magistrate judge may hear any pretrial matter except “dispositive”

motions).

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 123 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Based on the large volume of these pleadings, the court has considered issuing an order 1

limiting the number of pleadings plaintiff may file. 

2

 Therefore, the fact that parties are directed in their activities by a magistrate judge

cannot, without more, transform the matter at hand into an “injunctive” relief matter governed by 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). See, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir.

1991) (magistrate judge may compel a party to pay prospective sanctions of $500.00 per day

during period of non-compliance with discovery orders to ensure compliance). It is only when

the “injunctive” relief sought goes to the merits of plaintiff’s actions or to complete stays of an

action that orders under § 636(b)(1)(A) are precluded. See, e.g., Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d

414 (9th Cir. 1992). New York v. United States Metals Roofing Co., 771 F.2d 796, 801 (3d Cir.

1985) (injunctive relief requests must go to the merits of an action).

In the instant case, plaintiff’s request does not go the merits of plaintiff’s action.

Accordingly, this matter may be handled by court order.

As stated above, plaintiff alleges that he has received inadequate access to the law

library, photocopying services and legal supplies. The court makes the following observations

regarding plaintiff’s litigation of this action. Since June 2006, plaintiff has filed 46 pleadings. 

1

While several of these pleadings concern plaintiff’s inadequate law library access, etc., several do

not. For example, on January 4, 2007, plaintiff filed a 94 page motion to compel, indicating that

plaintiff has been able to serve defendants with several discovery requests. On December 20,

2006, plaintiff filed a response to defendants’ request for extension of time. On November 8,

2006, plaintiff filed objections to defendants’ request for extension of time. On October 20,

2006, plaintiff filed a 32 page motion to compel. On August 18, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion

for appointment of counsel. On August 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment counsel. 

On June 16, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to defendants’ request for extension of time.

The volume of plaintiff’s pleadings, as well as the substance, undermine

plaintiff’s claim that he has not received adequate access to the law library, photocopying

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 123 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

services and legal supplies. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion is denied. In the future, if plaintiff

is unable to file copies of documents due to his inability to obtain photocopying services, he shall

file a short declaration with the filed document explaining his efforts to obtain copies. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 7, 2006, motion

for a preliminary injunction and September 1, 2006, supplemental motion, construed as motions

for protective orders, are denied.

DATED: 2/2/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

fue675.pi

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 123 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 3