Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06452/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06452-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER, 

Petitioner, 

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL,

Respondent. 

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:04-cv-06452-AWI-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

ACCESS TO LAW LIBRARY (Doc. 7) 

ORDER DISCHARGING COURT’S ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE DATED MAY 6, 2005

(Doc. 8)

ORDER DISREGARDING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO COURT’S

ORDER TO AMEND (Doc. 7)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 26, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. (Doc. 1). On

February 28, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to amend the petition to name a

proper respondent. (Doc. 6). On March 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the

Court issue an order permitting Petitioner access to the prison law library at Wasco State Prison. 

(Doc. 7). On May 6, 2005, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not

be dismissed for failure to amend the petition in accordance with the Court’s order. (Doc. 8). 

On June 7, 2005, Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 9). 

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 10 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 6
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

Petitioner’s motion for access to the prison law library contends that Petitioner is being

“denied access to the law library and all legal material.” (Doc. 7, p. 2). Petitioner also contends

he has been denied the opportunity to read legal materials and copy cases. (Id.). Petitioner seeks

a court order giving him access to the law library. (Id.). The Court construes Petitioner’s motion

as a request for injunctive relief.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s motion for an injunction compelling respondent to provide him with law

library access should be denied for two reasons. First, the requirements for injunctive relief have

not been satisfied, i.e. Petitioner has failed to show irreparable injury. Second, the Court’s

habeas jurisdiction, which is limited to claims addressing the fact of Petitioner’s confinement,

does not extend to claims addressing the conditions of Petitioner’s confinement; rather,

confinement issues are properly brought as civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. The Requirements For Injunctive Relief Have Not Been Satisfied.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the Court to intervene to secure

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). The general legal principles applicable to a request for

preliminary injunctive relief are well established. To prevail, the moving party must show either 

(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or

(2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits, the balance of hardships tipping sharply

in the moving party's favor, and at least a fair chance of success on the merits. Owner Operator

Independent Drivers Ass’n., Inc. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., 367 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir.

2004). These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale, on which the required

degree of irreparable injury increases as the probability of success decreases. Id.; Oakland

Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985).

"Under any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat

of irreparable injury." Oakland Tribune, Inc., 762 F.2d at 1376. In the absence of a significant

///

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 10 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 6
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

3

showing of irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the

merits. Id. Here, Petitioner has failed to show irreparable harm.

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). There is no absolute right to use a

prison law library; ‘prison law libraries and legal assistance programs are not ends in themselves,

but only the means for ensuring “a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations

of fundamental constitutional rights to the court.”’ Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 351, quoting

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 825. A prisoner’s denial of access to the courts claim must be

founded on “actual injury” and applies only to attacks upon a conviction or sentence, and civil

rights actions challenging the conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343. 

In order to show that he has suffered or will imminently suffer actual injury, a prisoner 

must establish that he is being hindered in his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim concerning

his conviction, sentence, or conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 353-355. 

The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the right of access as extending only through the pleadings

stage, and not to include the right to successfully litigate the matter through resolution. Id. at 354; 

see, Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F. 3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Although Petitioner contends that he has been denied access to the law library, his

generalized allegation, without more, fails to demonstrate actual injury, as required by Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343. Moreover, the chronology of this case is inconsistent with Petitioner’s

contention of irreparable harm. Subsequent to the filing of the instant motion alleging lack of

library access, Petitioner filed an amended petition in accordance with the Court’s prior order.

(Docs. 7, 9). It thus appears that Petitioner’s ability to litigate effectively to date has not been

compromised through the pleadings stage to date, and therefore his lack of access to the law

library and to unidentified “other materials” has not hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. 

The Court will screen the amended petition and issue appropriate orders for either an

amended petition or a response to be filed. However, because Petitioner has not made an

adequate showing that he has suffered or is in imminent danger of suffering irreparable injury,

///

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 10 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 6
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

1To the extent that prison officials are violating Petitioner’s right of access to the courts, Petitioner is not

precluded from raising a claim in a separate action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, a preliminary

injunction may not be issued in this case to remedy that claim. A petition for writ of habeas corpus concerns whether 

a petitioner’s conviction and confinement violates the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). Challenges

to prison conditions are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-142,

111 S.Ct. 1737, 1741-1742 (1991); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499, 93 S.Ct, 1827, 1841 (1973); Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s denial of law library access

claim concerns a condition of his confinement. 

4

the Court need not address the issue of the likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Oakland

Tribune, Inc., 762 F.2d at 1376. Accordingly, the motion for injunctive relief should be denied.

B. The Court Lacks Habeas Jurisdiction To Consider Conditions of Confinement.

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. As a threshold and preliminary matter,

the Court must have before it for consideration a “case” or “controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392

U.S. 83, 88 (1968). Absent such a case or controversy, the Court has no power to hear the

matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). 

The Court’s habeas jurisdiction was invoked when Petitioner filed his habeas petition

raising the following four claims related to Petitioner’s convictions for battery, corporal injury to

a spouse, false imprisonment by violence, resisting arrest, vandalism, and making a criminal

threat: (1) judicial misconduct in admitting certain evidence at trial and denying Petitioner’s

request for a new attorney; (2) denial of Petitioner’s right to represent himself; (3) violation of

Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial; and (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (Doc. 9, pp. 5-

6). 

Thus, the “case” or “controversy” over which this Court has habeas jurisdiction is framed

by these allegations. None of these claims, however, relates in any fashion to the denial of access

to the prison law library. Since the amended petition does not contain allegations raising issues

similar to those presented in Petitioner’s motion, there is no controversy present with respect to

the issues in Petitioner’s motion to which the Court’s habeas jurisdiction would extend, nor

would the issuance of the order sought by Petitioner in his motion relief as to any of the claims

contained in his amended petition. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an

order.1 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 10 Filed 07/05/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

C. Order to Show Cause.

On May 6, 2005, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be

dismissed for failure to amend the petition in accordance with the Court’s February 28, 2005

order to amend the petition to name a proper respondent. (Docs. 6, 8). On June 7, 2005,

Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus that appears to name the proper

respondent. (Doc. 9). Because Petitioner has now complied with the Court’s prior order to

amend, the Court will discharge the order to show cause. 

D. Petitioner’s Objection to the Order to Amend.

Along with his motion for injunctive relief, Petitioner also filed a “Objectioner [sic] to

Amend Petitioner to Name a Proper Respondent.” (Doc. 7). In that document, Petitioner

disagrees with the Court’s order to amend, contending instead that “Fresno County Jail” is indeed

a proper respondent in a habeas corpus petition. (Id.). In light of the fact that Petitioner

subsequently filed an amended petition naming the proper respondent, Petitioner’s Objections

will be disregarded as moot.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s Order to Show Cause dated May 6, 2005 (Doc. 8), is DISCHARGED; and 

2. Petitioner’s Objections to the Order to Amend (Doc. 7), is DISREGARDED as

MOOT.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed March 15, 2005 (Doc. 7), be DENIED without prejudice. 

 These findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these findings and recommendation, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 10 Filed 07/05/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 10 Filed 07/05/05 Page 6 of 6