Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03087/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03087-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CAVAZOS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv3087-MMA (MDD)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE,

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

AND INJUNCTION

[Doc. No. 23]

vs.

GARZA, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Robert Cavazos, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff now

moves for a variety of relief, including appointment of counsel. See Doc. No. 23. 

The Court addresses each request in turn. 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff requests “judicial notice” of the Court’s docket, specifically

document numbers 14 through 18. The Court construes this aspect of Plaintiff’s

motion as a request for a case status update. According to Plaintiff, he has been

housed at multiple institutions since August 2013 and suspects that prison officials

have not properly forwarded his legal mail. As such, Plaintiff states that he has not

yet received “notice” of these documents and is uncertain regarding the status of his

motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ pending motion to

dismiss. 

- 1 - 12cv3087

Case 3:12-cv-03087-MMA-MDD Document 24 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 4
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

The current record of this action shows that on July 31, 2013, Defendants filed

a renewed Certificate of Service demonstrating service of their pending motion to

dismiss upon Plaintiff at his correct mailing address. See Doc. No. 14. On August

22, 2013, the Court issued an order accepting Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of

time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, despite several discrepancies with

the document. See Doc. No. 15. Upon filing, the motion was docketed as document

number 16. See Doc. No. 16. On August 26, 2013, the Court issued an order

granting the motion and extending Plaintiff’s time to file an opposition to September

30, 2013. See Doc. No. 17. On August 28, 2013, the Court received and filed

Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address. See Doc. No. 18. On September 23, 2013,

the Court received and filed Plaintiff’s timely response in opposition to Defendants’

motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 19. Defendants filed a reply, and the Court has

taken the matter under submission and will issue a written ruling. See Doc. No. 20. 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

When he commenced this action, Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel. 

See Doc. No. 3. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice, explaining

that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may request that an attorney

represent an indigent civil litigant upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 

See Doc. No. 4, citing Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101,

1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff

seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s

success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his

claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id., citing

Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff once again moves for appointment of counsel, however the

procedural posture of this case remains such that a finding of exceptional

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel would be premature. 

- 2 - 12cv3087

Case 3:12-cv-03087-MMA-MDD Document 24 Filed 10/25/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss challenging the plausibility of Plaintiff’s

claims, which the Court has yet to consider. See Doc. No. 11. In the meantime,

Plaintiff successfully prepared and filed an opposition to the motion without the

assistance of counsel. See Doc. No. 19. 

Plaintiff argues that assistance of counsel is necessary based on new

circumstances. According to Plaintiff, prison officials are impeding his access to

incoming legal mail and interfering with his outgoing legal mail. Plaintiff asserts

that it is difficult to articulate his claims and litigate this action based on the

mishandling of his legal mail. Plaintiff also expresses concern about participating in

discovery if the interference with his legal mail continues. The institutional

constraints placed on an incarcerated individual’s receipt and delivery of legal mail

undoubtedly create a unique challenge during litigation. However, such restrictions

are necessary in the penological environment to ensure the safety of both prisoners

and prison officials. The assistance of counsel would not excuse Plaintiff from these

restrictions, and would likely have no substantial effect on the internal processing of

his legal mail by prison officials. 

Accordingly, the Court declines to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff in

this action at this time and DENIES this aspect of his motion without prejudice. 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff is currently housed at Sierra Conservation Center. Based on his

concerns regarding the mishandling of his legal mail, Plaintiff moves for an order

enjoining the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

from transferring him to Calipatria, Centinela, or Ironwood State Prisons. Centinela

is the institution where Plaintiff experienced difficulty receiving and sending legal

mail, and the other two prisons are in the same region. 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not have a

constitutional right to incarceration in a prison of his choice. Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). More importantly, the Court lacks authority to issue

- 3 - 12cv3087

Case 3:12-cv-03087-MMA-MDD Document 24 Filed 10/25/13 Page 3 of 4
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

an order against an entity or individual who is not a party to the suit pending before

it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). The

defendants in this action were correctional officers employed at Calipatria State

Prison in 2010. Plaintiff is no longer housed at Calipatria, however, and the Court

does not have jurisdiction over any official who could appropriately respond to a

court order granting Plaintiff the relief he seeks. And any generalized injunctive

relief in this action against the CDCR would not comply with the requirements of

the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (“[T]he 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.”). 

In addition, Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief does not relate to his claims

in this action. A court may not issue an injunction in “a matter lying wholly outside

the issues in the suit.” De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220

(1945). Here, Plaintiff alleges violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free

from cruel and unusual punishment arising out of his conditions of confinement. 

Subsequent handling of his legal mail constitutes a separate matter, implicating a

different set of constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion in substantial

part. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 25, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv3087

Case 3:12-cv-03087-MMA-MDD Document 24 Filed 10/25/13 Page 4 of 4