(PC) Hammler v. Hernandez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00616 SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A COURT ORDER 13 v. (Doc. 88) J. HERNANDEZ, 15 Defendant.

17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 This Court issued its Order Setting Dispositive Motion Deadline on November 13, 2023.

19 (Doc. 76.) Dispositive motions were to be filed no later than January 30, 2024. (Id.) 20 On January 30, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 77.) On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 81.) Defendant filed an opposition on February 15, 2024. (Doc. 82.) On February 22, 2024, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time within which to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to March 21, 2024. (Doc. 84.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion.

26 On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for Order Re Access to Law Library.” (Doc. 88.)1 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff moves the Court for “an Order directing Secretary of CDCR Macomber, Warden of Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), and their Agents over and in the RHU to” immediately assign a litigation coordinator to assist Plaintiff in “being able to obtain copies of his endeavored submissions” in this case and to “direct” those individuals to “adhere to” provisions of the California Code of Regulations and to “stop preventing the filings of pleadings unless he provide them to officers first, whom are or may be the subject of the pleadings.” (Doc. 88 at 1-2.)

8 Plaintiff’s motion is supported by his declaration. (Id. at 3-5.) Plaintiff states that before his transfer to Pelican Bay State Prison, he was provided “necessary and proper access” to the law library and assistance with legal copy requests. (Id. at 3, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff asserts that assistance was “to prevent custody staff, i.e., officers (C/Os) from reading and or interfering with the filing of court documents ….” (Id., ¶ 2.)

13 Following his transfer and over the period of three days, Plaintiff states he has “attempted to gain access to copies of [his] completed Reply” to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

15 (Id. at 4, ¶ 3.) He has been told by Pelican Bay State Prison staff “that there is no process for the access in works as of today, but have had them provide me forms that evidence other.” (Id.) Plaintiff states he has “asserted the right to have the processes published in the provided forms …” but his requests have been refused. (Id., ¶ 4.) Despite being “illegally pressed upon,” he has “no other avenue to obtain the relief but for this Court that has inherent power to stop an uninterested party from interfering with [his] litigating a matter” on this Court’s docket. (Id. at 4- 5, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff contends his “motion should not be read or construed as a request for injunctive relief, but a motion of which the court may entertain in the absence of showings that are mandated for injunction.” (Id. at 5, ¶ 5.)

24 Although Plaintiff contends that this Court should not read or construe his motion as a motion for injunctive relief, that is precisely the type of relief Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff asks this Court to issue an order directing non-parties to take a particular action and avoid other actions.

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

28 Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 1 964, 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.

4 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. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ . . .

8 and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). Here, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the warden and other officials at Pelican Bay State Prison are not parties to this action. The order Plaintiff requests is not related to the viable legal claim in this action: a free exercise of religion claim arising under the First Amendment and occurring in 2018 while Plaintiff was incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the individuals that are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727; Price, 390 F.3d at 1117. Plaintiff's request does not relate to the claim in Plaintiff's complaint or involve the parties to this action and therefore the Court does not have jurisdiction.

18 See Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 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); Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (a plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint because the “court's equitable power lies only over the merits of the case or controversy before it”); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

24 Based upon Plaintiff’s motion and the accompanying declaration, copies or documents Plaintiff seeks from officials at Pelican Bay State Prison appear to relate to his opposition to Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion. His opposition was due by March 21, 2024, and his instant motion was filed March 20, 2024. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for a court order and will grant Plaintiff another thirty days within which to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. That extension of time should allow for the completion and filing of Plaintiff’s opposition.

3 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s motion or request for a court order (Doc. 88) is DENIED; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment SHALL be filed 7 within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: March 28, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE