United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRTE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges his cell at California State Prison -
Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) was not in compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or
with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
(“RA”). Plaintiff is presently housed at
California State Prison - Corcoran
(“CSP-Corcoran”). Before the court are
plaintiff's motions for physical access to the law
library (ECF No. 61) and for injunctive relief (ECF No. 62).
For the reasons set forth below the court will recommend that
both motions be denied and that this action be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
filed this action in November 2016. Before the court had the
opportunity to screen the complaint, plaintiff filed four
motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10) and
requested leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 8). The court
instructed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
thirty days and informed him that if he failed to do so the
case would proceed on his original complaint. (ECF No. 12.)
The court also denied plaintiff's motions for injunctive
relief requesting access to the library, transfer from
CSP-Corcoran back to CSP-Sac, relief from confinement to his
cell 24-hours per day, and his motion for the appointment of
counsel. The court noted that plaintiff had been advised in a
separate action he could not file repeated, meritless motions
for injunctive relief and warned him he could not continue
his stream of filings in this case without consequences.
(Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff
did not file an amended complaint. The court then screened
plaintiff's original complaint, dismissed his claims, and
instructed him to file an amended complaint within thirty
days. (ECF No. 29.) The court additionally addressed ten
motions and notices plaintiff had filed between July 20, 2017
and August 14, 2017 (ECF Nos 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26). (ECF
No. 30.) In those filings plaintiff sought: (1) an order
requiring CSP-Corcoran to provide him access to the law
library, legal supplies, and a photocopy machine; (2) an
order requiring CSP-Corcoran to allow plaintiff access to
programs and services and to release him from the 24-hour per
day/7-day a week confinement in his cell; (3) an order
requiring CSP-Corcoran to provide plaintiff all of his meals;
and (4) an order requiring officials at CSP-Corcoran to
respond to plaintiff's appeals. (Id.) The court
provided plaintiff the standards for injunctive relief and
explained plaintiff's requests were inappropriate in this
action because the relief plaintiff sought was not related to
the subject matter of this suit. However, the court also
ordered the Office of the Attorney General to contact the
litigation coordinator at CSP-Corcoran and inform the court
about plaintiff's access to the law library.
Supervising
Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson specially appeared by
filing a response to the court's request for information
regarding plaintiff's access to the law library. (ECF No.
36.) The reply stated that plaintiff was designated a
Correctional Treatment Center (“CTC”) inmate at
CSP-Corcoran due to his medical status. (Id.) CTC
inmates are not allowed physical access to the law library,
but may obtain legal materials, supplies, and photocopying
through the law library paging system. (Id.) The
reply noted that plaintiff had used the paging system, but
refused to give library workers his legal documents for
photocopying. Plaintiff also stated he refused to give
library workers his legal documents for photocopying. (ECF
No. 42.)
Following
the filing of the court's orders dismissing his complaint
and denying his requests for injunctive relief, plaintiff
filed eight unsolicited documents and a response to Ms.
Anderson's filing. (ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41,
42, and 43.) The court recommended plaintiff's requests
be denied and again informed plaintiff that injunctive relief
against officials at CSP-Corcoran is not appropriate in this
action. The court warned plaintiff for the second time that
he could not continue his stream of filings in this case
without consequences and informed him that further motions
for injunctive relief directed towards officials at
CSP-Corcoran would likely result in a recommendation that
this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 46.)
By
order dated October 10, 2017 the court screened
plaintiff's first amended complaint and found he stated a
potentially cognizable claim for violation of his rights
under the ADA and the RA, but dismissed his retaliation
claim. (ECF No. 45.) The court gave plaintiff the option to
amend or proceed on the complaint as screened. (Id.)
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order to file an
amended complaint or return a completed summons and copies of
the complaint so that defendants may be properly served, but
has filed thirteen motions, notices, and objections. (ECF
Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62.)
Between
October 18, 2017 and November 27, 2017 plaintiff filed a
motion for court order (ECF No. 44), a motion for protective
custody (ECF No. 49), two motions for the appointment of
counsel (ECF Nos. 52, 53), two motions for injunctive relief
(ECF Nos. 54, 55), and a motion for an extension of time (ECF
No. 51). The motions repeated plaintiff's previous
requests for relief regarding physical access to the library
and confinement to his cell, as well as a request for
placement in protective custody.
The
undersigned recommended all of the motions and notices
relating to plaintiff's confinement at CSP-Corcoran be
denied. The court informed plaintiff for the third time that
injunctive relief based on events occurring at CSP-Corcoran
were inappropriate in this action because they are unrelated
to his underlying claim and that he could not continue his
stream of filings in this case without consequences. (ECF No.
56.) Plaintiff was warned for the second time that further
motions for injunctive relief directed towards officials at
CSP-Corcoran may result in a recommendation that this action
be dismissed. (Id.)
Between
December 4, 2017 and March 1, 2018, plaintiff filed three
motions for injunctive relief requesting access to the law
library (ECF No. 57, 61, 62), a notice (ECF No. 58), and
objections to the court's findings and recommendations
(ECF No. 59). Plaintiff acknowledged that his failure to
comply with the court's order would likely result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed, but claims he
cannot comply unless the court orders officials at
CSP-Corcoran to provide plaintiff with two hours of physical
access to the law library three times per week. (ECF Nos. 61,
62.)
Based
on plaintiff's refusal to comply with court orders and
his repeated filings of meritless motions requesting physical
access to the law library the court will recommend that this
action be dismissed.
MOTIONS
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
After
the court issued a second warning that filing further motions
seeking injunctive relief from officials at CSP-Corcoran
would likely result in a recommendation that this action be
dismissed, plaintiff filed two more motions for injunctive
relief requesting physical access to the law library. (ECF
Nos 61, 62.) Plaintiff's request for physical access to
the law library is unrelated to plaintiff's underlying
claim concerning ADA and RA violations at CSP-Sac. Therefore,
it is inappropriate for the court to grant plaintiff's
motions for injunctive relief in this case. See Pacific
Radiation Oncology, LLC, v. Queen's Medical Center,
810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding there must be a
sufficient nexus between the request in a motion ...