Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dwight A. Staten v. J. Wang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 14, 2011

DWIGHT A. STATEN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. WANG, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT (Doc. 11)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND DENYING MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION (Doc. 12)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Dwight A. Staten ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 14, 2010, the Court dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a request for copies of the complaint on January 7, 2011. (Doc. 11.) On January 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file the amended complaint and a motion for an injunction requiring the warden to give Plaintiff access to the law library. (Doc. 12.)

II. Request for Copy of Complaint

Generally, the Clerk's Office will provide copies for Plaintiff at a cost of $0.50 per page. The Court will make an exception in this instance and will direct the Clerk's Office to provide a copy of the complaint at no charge. However, Plaintiff is advised that it is his responsibility to keep copies of all documents he files with the Court for his records and any further copies will need to paid for by Plaintiff.

III. Motion for Extension of Time and Injunction

The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time as he has shown good cause due to the law library being closed for one week. However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations on injunctive relief. Section 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, "Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Absent a cognizable claim for denial of access to the law library the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and it will be denied.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that"

1. Plaintiff's request for a copy of the complaint is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk's Office shall mail a copy of the complaint, filed May 5, 2009, to Plaintiff;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file his amended complaint; and

4. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

cm411

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20110114

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.