Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01464-0/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

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

I. Background

Plaintiff Calvin M. Simpson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)

II. Motion for Access to Legal Resources

On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion stating that the Manager for Offender Programs 

at Fresno County Jail, Michelle Lefers, denied him law library access. (ECF No. 6.) He seeks that this 

Court order (1) a dismissal of certain criminal complaints against him; (2) order that he be allowed 

access to a law library; and (3) an order that he be appointed legal counsel to compensate for the lack 

of legal resources. 

CALVIN M. SIMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01464-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REQUESTING ACCESS TO LEGAL RESOURCES

(ECF No. 6)

Case 1:15-cv-01464-BAM Document 8 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 4
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

To Plaintiff’s request that this Court dismiss criminal complaints against him brought in the 

Superior Court of California, the Court informs Plaintiff that this is a civil action in federal court, and 

this Court does not have jurisdiction over such matters. 

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion, to the extent he seeks an order allowing him access to 

the law library, as a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the 

jail officials at the Fresno County Jail. His request for the appointment of counsel is discussed further 

below. 

A. Standard

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. Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 

395, 101 S. Ct. 1830, 68 L. Ed. 2d 175 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 

the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 

374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, 

one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997) 

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must 

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S. 

Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 

Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 70 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1982). If the court does 

not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 

461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 

over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 

rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 

(9th Cir.1985).

Case 1:15-cv-01464-BAM Document 8 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 4
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

The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1 

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is 

limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

B. Discussion

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 

Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or 

any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

By an order to be issued concurrently with this order, the Court has screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint and determined that he has not yet stated any cognizable claims. No defendant has been 

ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks 

personal jurisdiction over any officials at Fresno County Jail, and it cannot issue an order requiring 

them to take any action. 

Further, Plaintiff has informed the Court that he is now housed at the Wasco State Prison (ECF 

No. 7), and is no longer being held at Fresno County Jail. As a result, his claim for injunctive relief 

against the officials at Fresno County Jail is moot. See Holt v. Stockman, 2012 WL 259938, *6 (E.D. 

Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (a prisoner’s claim for injunctive relief is rendered moot when he is transferred 

from the institution whose employees he seeks to enjoin); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 

1047, 1053 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2007). 

III. Request for the Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff states in his motion that he seeks counsel because he was denied access to a law 

library at the Fresno County Jail. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 

Case 1:15-cv-01464-BAM Document 8 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 

circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating 

counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In 

determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the 

likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is 

assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases

almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination 

that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The Court has found, as shown in its separate order, 

that Plaintiff has not yet stated any cognizable claim in this case. Based on a review of the record in 

this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. Although 

Plaintiff has not yet stated any cognizable claims, his pleadings and motions thus far are 

understandable. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons explained above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Access to Legal Resources, filed October 13, 2015 (ECF No. 6), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01464-BAM Document 8 Filed 08/16/16 Page 4 of 4