From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Chen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 2, 2013
Case No. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC)

12-02-2013

JEREMY JONES, Plaintiff, v. DR. CHEN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO COMPEL ACCESS TO CENTRAL FILE


(ECF No. 35)


CLERK TO COPY CSATF LITIGATION

COORDINATOR WITH THIS ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility at Corcoran, California ("CSATF") proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is in the discovery phase. The deadline for completing discovery is March 10, 2014. (ECF No. 28.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and CSATF Correctional Counselor Hernandez to provide Plaintiff with immediate access to his central file. Plaintiff argues he needs documents to respond to pending discovery, and Hernandez is denying access because he has a vendetta against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's motion is construed as seeking affirmative injunctive relief. It must be denied. The Court has no jurisdiction over the CDCR and Hernandez. Neither is a party to this action or charged with acting in concert with a party. Even if the contrary were true, Plaintiff must show he has first exhausted available administrative remedies for gaining access to his file.

Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown the existence of any of the criteria for injunctive relief, i.e., (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in Plaintiff's favor. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983) (plaintiff must show "real and immediate" threat of injury). Plaintiff identifies no hardship he might suffer absent injunctive relief. Nothing before the Court suggests a present need for and entitlement to injunctive relief.

Nevertheless, the CSATF Litigation Coordinator is requested to inquire into the status of Plaintiff's request for access to his central file. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the CSATF Litigation Coordinator via facsimile at (559) 9927191.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion to compel access to his central file (ECF No. 35) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Jones v. Chen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 2, 2013
Case No. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013)
Case details for

Jones v. Chen

Case Details

Full title:JEREMY JONES, Plaintiff, v. DR. CHEN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 2, 2013

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013)