Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01063/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01063-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN A. BARBA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FERNANDO GONZALES, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-1063-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL ACCESS TO LAW LIBRARY

(ECF No. 7)

Plaintiff Ryan Barba (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 7] asking the Court to issue an order requiring the

prison to grant him access to the law library. The Court construes the instant motion as

a motion for a preliminary injunction. 

A prisoner alleging a violation of his right to access the courts must demonstrate that

he has suffered or will imminently suffer actual injury. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351

(1996). “An inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his

prison’s law library or legal assistance program is sub-par in some theoretical sense.” Id.

at 351. The inmate must show that the library “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.”

Id. To satisfy the actual-injury requirement, an inmate must “demonstrate that a

nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.” Id. at 353.

In this case, Plaintiff takes issue with the institution’s policy of granting law library

access only to those prisoners with a pending legal deadline. However, Plaintiff has failed

Case 1:10-cv-01063-MJS Document 12 Filed 07/26/10 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-

to point to any deadline that he has missed or any particular hardship he has faced as a

result of this policy. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown that the institution’s library policy has

“hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. at 351. Plaintiff’s generalized allegations

regarding his access to the law library fail to demonstrate the imminent or actual injury

required to warrant injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Court Order to Compel CDCR to Grant

Petitioner Access to Law Library [ECF No. 7] is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01063-MJS Document 12 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2