Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CDCR REVIEW BOARD, et al.,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 1:12-cv-00757 JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT 

ORDER

(Doc. 7)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se an in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has recently filed a motion for relief in which he

asks this Court to order the Attorney General to investigate issues he is suffering at his place of 

confinement. (Doc. 7) plaintiff raises a number of issues including the fact that his typewriter 

has been confiscated, his legal papers have not been provided to him and he has not been 

provided access to these materials on a weekly basis and that he is in fear for his personal safety 

because he reports that Correctional Officer A.V. Martinez has “ongoing attempts . . . to create 

violent conflict involving Plaintiff as well as with cellmate(s) . . .” For the reasons set forth 

below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is advised that Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and therefore 

must have before it an actual case or controversy. (Doc. 64 (citing City of Los Angeles v Lyons, 

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 06/29/12 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

27

28

2

461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. (Doc. 64 (citing Lyons, 461 

U.S. at 102). 

Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter on his claims against certain Defendants. (Doc 1.) 

Thus, the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s new allegations regarding his 

legal property. Moreover, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Correctional Officer 

Martinez or any other prison officials allegedly responsible for Plaintiff’s missing property. As a 

result, the Court is without authority to provide Plaintiff the relief his requests.

With regard to the law library and Plaintiff’s concern about pending deadlines, Plaintiff is 

informed that prisoners do not have a freestanding right to a law library or to legal assistance. 

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Law libraries and legal assistance programs are only 

the means of ensuring that a prisoner’s fundamental right to access the courts is preserved. Id. 

The accessibility or adequacy of a law library is therefore of constitutional concern only when it 

thwarts a prisoner from exercising his right to access the courts for the purpose of seeking redress 

for claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights. Id. (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 

U.S. 817, 825 (1977)). The prisoner must demonstrate that he suffered actual injury because of 

deficiencies in law library access or materials, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to 

present a claim in a direct appeal, habeas petition, or a 1983 action. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348, 355. 

On the other hand, it does not appear that Plaintiff has filed any 602 grievances related to 

his claims. Plaintiff is advised that the filing of the instant matter does not provide him an avenue 

for avoiding the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act not does it provide him 

immediate access to the Court for any of his day-to-day disputes.

Here, the matter is only two months old, the complaint has not been screened and there are 

no pending deadlines. Plaintiff does not explain how this very new litigation could possibly have 

generated more than the 1” of legal papers that have been returned to him and, indeed, the Court 

is at a loss to understand how this amount of paper could possibly relate to the instant litigation. 

On the other hand, if the issues raises impede his ability to timely respond any future Court 

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 06/29/12 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

27

28

3

deadline in this action, Plaintiff must seek immediately an extension of time from the Court, 

explain the circumstances and demonstrate good cause for the extension.

On the other hand, the Court takes seriously Plaintiff’s claim that he is in fear for his 

personal safety. As a result, it ORDERS service of this order and Plaintiff’s motion to the Legal 

Affairs Office of the CDCR for its review.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief, including his request for 

return of all his legal properties, mailing supplies, typewriter, and access to the law library (Doc. 

129) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 06/29/12 Page 3 of 3