Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01762-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JEREMY JONES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. CHEN, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL ACCESS TO CENTRAL FILE

(ECF No. 35)

CLERK TO COPY CSATF LITIGATION 

COORDINATOR WITH THIS ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse and 

Treatment Facility at Corcoran, California (“CSATF”) proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is in the discovery 

phase. The deadline for completing discovery is March 10, 2014. (ECF No. 28.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and CSATF Correctional Counselor Hernandez to 

provide Plaintiff with immediate access to his central file. Plaintiff argues he needs 

documents to respond to pending discovery, and Hernandez is denying access because he 

has a vendetta against Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s motion is construed as seeking affirmative injunctive relief. It must be 

denied. The Court has no jurisdiction over the CDCR and Hernandez. Neither is a party to 

this action or charged with acting in concert with a party. Even if the contrary were true,

Plaintiff must show he has first exhausted available administrative remedies for gaining

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 37 Filed 12/03/13 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

access to his file. 

Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown the existence of any of the criteria for injunctive 

relief, i.e., (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, 

or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships 

tipping in Plaintiff’s favor. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 

F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, 

Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 

101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of injury). Plaintiff identifies 

no hardship he might suffer absent injunctive relief. Nothing before the Court suggests a 

present need for and entitlement to injunctive relief.

Nevertheless, the CSATF Litigation Coordinator is requested to inquire into the 

status of Plaintiff’s request for access to his central file. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 

serve a copy of this order on the CSATF Litigation Coordinator via facsimile at (559) 992-

7191.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion to compel access to his central 

file (ECF No. 35) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 37 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 2