Carroll v. California Department of Corrections

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] ABONILICO CARROLL, Case No. 19-cv-02126-BAS-KSC [11] Plaintiff, ORDER: [12] v. (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR ORDER REQUIRING WARDEN, DONOVAN STATE ACCESS TO LAW LIBRARY; PRISON; CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER; [14] C. WRIGHT; S. MILLER, AND [15] Defendants. (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO 16 SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF HIS COMPLAINT [17] (ECF Nos. 39, 44) [18] 19 The Court has received two letters from Plaintiff Abonilico Carroll requesting an 20 emergency order requiring Wasco State Prison (“Wasco”) to provide access to the law 21 library and an order appointing counsel.1 (ECF No. 39, 44.) Plaintiff informs the Court 22 that after his transfer to Wasco, he was placed in quarantine as a COVID-19 precaution 23 and unable to access the law library, resulting in a delay in his prosecution of his case. He 24 also states that he believes the facility is interfering with his ability to litigate this matter. 25 Plaintiff also requests free access to the phone and a copy of “the witnesses [he] sent with [26] 27 1 Magistrate Judge Crawford recently denied Plaintiff’s previously filed Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 45.) The Court therefore does not address Plaintiff’s renewed request for counsel in [28] 1 [his] original complaint to be able to locate and to obtain official declarations” from them. 2 Regarding the alleged restricted use of the law library and his request for free phone 3 use, the Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for preliminary injunction. See, 4 e.g., Wolinski v. Boardman, No. 1:10-cv-02139-AWI, 2012 WL 4936051 , at *1 (E.D. Cal. 5 Oct. 15, 2012). Preliminary injunctions are orders that preserve the status quo to avoid 6 immediate and irreparable injury to the moving party before the adverse party can be heard 7 in opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of 8 Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). This requires a moving party to show, among other 9 things, that the party is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying case, thus requiring 10 that it address conduct that is the subject of the action before the court. See Hardney v. 11 Warren, No. 2:16-cv-0172-KJM-EFB P, 2019 WL 325269 , at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019) 12 (citing Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)). 13 Here, because Wasco State Prison is not a party to this action, Plaintiff cannot satisfy 14 the requirements for injunctive relief. See id. In this same context, many other courts have 15 found that they lack jurisdiction over non-party persons or entities to entertain requests for 16 preliminary injunctions under Rule 65. See McCoy v. Holguin, No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD17 HBK, 2021 WL 1327853 , at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2021) (citing Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 18 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983)) (“Plaintiff is informed that the court has no jurisdiction over 19 nonparties in this case, such as prison library staff, and cannot order prison personnel to 20 provide him library access.”); Barno v. Padilla, No. 20-CV-03886-SI, 2020 WL 6544427 , 21 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) (denying request for more access to the law library where, 22 in part, “the relief appears to be sought against nonparties and there is no indication the 23 defendants set the law library schedule”); Johnson v. Dovey, No. 1:08-cv-00640-LJO-DLB 24 PC, 2012 WL 2196119 , at *2 (E.D. Cal., June 14, 2012) (denying a motion for order 25 directing warden to provide the plaintiff access to the law library where warden was not a 26 party to the action) 27 Alternatively, the All Writs Act (“AWA”) provides the Court some ability to 28 exercise its inherent authority over conduct and parties that are not the subject of the 1 underlying action. See 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) (granting authority to federal courts to issue “all 2 writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the 3 usages and principles of law”). Under the AWA, a court may exercise authority against 4 persons or entities who, “though not parties to the original action or engaged in 5 wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper 6 administration of justice.” United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). However, 7 this authority is limited to only circumstances where it is “necessary” or “appropriate”; if 8 alternative remedies exist, then courts cannot justify an exercise of authority pursuant to 9 the AWA. See Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 537 (1999) (“The All Writs Act invests 10 a court with a power essentially equitable and, as such, not generally available to provide 11 alternatives to other, adequate remedies at law.”). 12 In the situation at bar, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this order is necessary or 13 appropriate to aid this Court’s jurisdiction over his claims. Although he claims that Wasco 14 is hindering delivery of his mail to the courts and preventing him from accessing legal 15 resources, the Court has received both Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address and his 16 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, as well as his letters. Further, the Court’s Order to 17 Show Cause—which Plaintiff states he did not timely receive—is now moot because 18 Defendants have filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. This case has now 19 proceeded into discovery, and no deadlines are imminent. Plaintiff has therefore failed to 20 show that his alleged restricted access to the library or phone has frustrated his ability to 21 litigate this action and is not otherwise remediable through the prison grievance process or 22 a separate civil rights suit. See Hardney, 2019 WL 325269 , at *2. The Court therefore 23 does not find it necessary or appropriate to exercise its authority under the AWA to issue 24 the requested relief at this time.2 [25] 26 2 Separately, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s quarantines—which resulted his delayed access to the law library—appear to have occurred after his transfer from another facility and after his return from the 27 hospital as a COVID-19 precautionary measure. Considering the complications presented by the pandemic, the Court finds it particularly inappropriate to interfere with day-to-day prison administration [28] 1 Thus, Plaintiff's request for an emergency order regarding access to the law library 2 free use of the phone is DENIED. Nonetheless, to the extent restricted access to 3 || resources impede Plaintiff's ability to prosecute this action going forward, he may seek 4 || extensions of time to comply with court-ordered deadlines or attach a copy of this court’s 5 || order to his request to access legal resources to demonstrate that the litigation of this case 6 ongoing. See McCoy, 2021 WL 1327853 , at *3. The Court is also mindful that the 7 ||delays caused by pandemic procedures, transfers, and hospitalizations are not within 8 || Plaintiff's control, and will allow additional time, as necessary, for him to comply with the 9 || Court’s orders. 10 Lastly, although the Court sees no specific list of witnesses filed with the original 11 || Complaint, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send Plaintiff a copy of his original 12 || Complaint (ECF No. 1) that he claims contains the list of witnesses. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 / ak 15 || DATED: May 17, 2021 (if A ie Hohe □□ ¢ How. Cynthia Bashant 16 United States District Judge [25] 26 || would be particularly intrusive into prison operations at a time when many prisoners want access to the 27 || law library and officials are attempting to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic in the prison setting.”); see also Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing themselves 28 |! in minutiae of prison operations).