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.

Guillermo Garcia v. M. Mix

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 27, 2012

GUILLERMO GARCIA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. MIX, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER (ECF No. 27) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Guillermo Garcia ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff's first amended complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend within thirty days. On July 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order compelling the law librarian at California Correctional Institution ('CCI"), Tehachapi, to provide access to the law library. (ECF No. 27.)

The federal court's jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue equitable orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violations which form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).

Plaintiff's claim in this action arises from a past incidents in which Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at the Sierra Conservation Center confiscated his property and interfered with his access to the courts. The pendency of this action does not confer on the Court jurisdiction to issue an order directing prison officials at CCI, Tehachapi, where Plaintiff is currently housed, to provide him access to the law library, because such an order would not remedy the underlying legal claims. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 129 S.Ct. 1142 at 1149; Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04; Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

Since the thirty days in which Plaintiff was ordered to file his amended complaint has passed, the Court shall construe Plaintiff's request as a motion for an extension of time and shall grant Plaintiff thirty days in which to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that to obtain an extension of time he is required to file a motion prior to the due date of his pleading and no further extensions of time shall be granted without a showing of good cause. Additionally, the fact that Plaintiff has multiple legal actions proceeding is not good cause for his failure to comply with the orders of this Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an order compelling access to the law library, filed July 26, 2012, is DENIED;

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint; and

3. Failure to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order shall result in this action being dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120727

© 1992-2012 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.