Opinion
2:20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P
01-19-2022
BILLY DRIVER, JR., Plaintiff, v. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 107.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied. Background
This action proceeds on plaintiff's amended complaint against defendants Bansal, Dr. Rauf and Maya. (ECF No. 13.) Defendant Bansal is employed at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”) and defendants Rauf and Maya are employed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment when they denied plaintiff's request to discontinue his prescription for the anti-psychotic medication Invega after plaintiff told defendants that he was not psychotic and that the medication caused harmful side effects. 1
Discussion
In the pending motion, plaintiff moves for sanctions on the grounds that he is being denied law library access at KVSP. (ECF No. 107.) Plaintiff alleges that on January 6, 2022, Tower Guard Lopez gave plaintiff permission to go to the law library for copies, supplies and to conduct research. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that when he arrived at the law library, Law Librarian Santiago told plaintiff that, per “O.P. 106, ” only inmates with Preferred Legal User (“PLU”) status were allowed to come into the law library. (Id.) Inmates with PLU status have court-ordered deadlines. (Id.) Plaintiff did not have PLU status. (Id.) Plaintiff appears to request that the court grant him PLU status. (Id.)
At the outset, the undersigned construes plaintiff's motion as a motion for protective order. Elmore v. Arong, 2010 WL 796983, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. March 5, 2010) (construing motion for law library access as motion for protective order as request was non-dispositive).
As a threshold matter, the court does not have jurisdiction to order the relief plaintiff seeks. It does not appear that defendants Rauf or Maya have any control over matters related to the law library and Law Librarian Santiago is not named as a defendant. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (this court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it).
Turning to the merits of plaintiff's motion, in a suit pertaining to a prisoner's access to the law library, a successful claim requires a showing of “actual injury” resulting from a denial of access. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). To establish he suffered an actual injury, plaintiff must show “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348.
Plaintiff does not allege that he risks missing any court deadline in the instant action due to inadequate law library access. A review of the court docket reveals no pending deadlines for plaintiff. Plaintiff does not allege that his ability to draft or research a specific motion in the instant action has been hindered due to inadequate law library access. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated an actual injury based on alleged inadequate law library access. The court cannot order prison officials to grant plaintiff PLU status, and law 2 library access, based on these circumstances. See Hunter v. Fisher, 2020 WL 3493070, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) (denying request for law library access because, in part, “Plaintiff has not alleged that he is at risk of missing any particular deadline in this action or that he is currently attempting to draft or research a specific motion to be filed in this action, and the Court has no pending motions filed by Defendants which would require the filing of a response from Plaintiff.”).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs motion for sanctions based on alleged inadequate law library access is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for sanctions (ECF No. 107) is denied. 3