Jacome v. Vlahakis

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER JACOME, Case No.: 18cv10-GPC-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 13 v. REQUEST FOR ORDER COMPELLING ACCESS TO THE 14 DIMITRIS VLAHAKIS, et al., LAW LIBRARY 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 64] 16

17 On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court entitled “motion to proceed 18 to excessive force.” ECF Nos. 63, 64. In the letter, Plaintiff made two requests: (1) for the 19 Court to permit Plaintiff to proceed on his excessive force claim and (2) for the Court to 20 order that Plaintiff have immediate access to the library. ECF No. 64. This Court’s order 21 on September 9, 2019 addressed Plaintiff’s first request. ECF No. 65. Addressing 22 Plaintiff’s second request, which this Court treats as a request for injunctive relief, the 23 Court DENIES now Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling his immediate access to 24 the law library. 25 As a threshold matter, this Court does not clearly have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 26 request. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that an injunction is only enforceable against a person who receives actual notice of it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). 1 That is because a Court cannot adjudicate the rights of persons not properly before it. See 2 Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that a “court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties” but cannot “attempt to 3 determine the rights of persons not before the court”). 4 Here, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue an injunction against the law library and, 5 presumably, the institution which operates it. Because Plaintiff has not made the law 6 library a party to this action, nor otherwise established jurisdiction over it, Plaintiff’s 7 request is not actionable. See Saleh v. Titan Corp., 353 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1091-92 (S.D. 8 Cal. 2004) (concluding the court lacked jurisdiction over non-parties to the action). 9 Also, a court may only issue an injunction where there is a “relationship between 10 the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the 11 underlying complaint.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 12 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff’s forthcoming Fifth Amended 13 Complaint is factually similar to the Fourth Amended Complaint, none of Plaintiff’s 14 underlying allegations pertain to his use of the law library. See ECF No. 54 at 5-9. 15 Briefly, the Court also notes that Plaintiff’s request of injunctive relief would fail 16 on the merits. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a likelihood 17 of succeeding on the merits; (2) a likelihood that plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in 18 the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) 19 that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 20 7, 20 (2008). In a suit pertaining to a prisoner’s access to the law library, a successful 21 claim requires a showing of “actual injury,” such as the inability “to file a complaint.” 22 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996); accord Taylor v. Salinas Valley State Prison, 23 246 F. App’x 417, 418 (9th Cir. 2007); Grimes v. Small, 34 F. App’x 279, 280 (9th Cir. 24 2002). Taylor v. Block, 221 F.3d 1349, 1349 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, Plaintiff’s claim fails on this ground alone. Plaintiff states that a “[d]enial of 25 access to the law library is a violation of [his] civil rights” and that the alleged attempts to 26 deny him access are “retaliation” for his current lawsuit. See ECF No. 63 at 1-2. 1 || Generalized allegations such as these do not meet the requirements of Lewis v. Casey, 2 ||518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). In addition, to the degree that Plaintiff contends he was unable 3 respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 54, because of limited access 4 the law library, Plaintiff was not injured because the Court’s order on September 9, 5 2019 permits Plaintiff to re-file an amended complaint. See ECF 65 at 12-13. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling immediate access to the 7 law library is DENIED as (1) this Court lacks jurisdiction to address Plaintiff's claim; (2) 3 Plaintiffs claim is unrelated to the complaint’s allegations; and (3) Plaintiff does not

9 allege any actual injury. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 M Dated: September 19, 2019 sale 0 12 C2. LE Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27