Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Bodnar v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 2, 2017

THOMAS BODNAR, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 17) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING FACILITY TO MAKE LEGAL COPIES (ECF NO. 18) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING JAIL TO STOP OPENING LEGAL MAIL (ECF NO. 19)

         Plaintiff Thomas Bodnar is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Currently before the Court are three motions by Plaintiff, all filed on May 30, 2017: (1) a motion for an extension of time to amend his complaint; (2) a motion for an order directing a correctional facility to make legal copies for Plaintiff; and (3) a motion for an order directing the jail not to open Plaintiff's legal mail. (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19.) The Court will address each motion in turn.

         I.

         EXTENSION OF TIME

         Plaintiff requests a thirty-day extension of time to amend his complaint, stating that he has not had sufficient law library access yet to work on the complaint.

         Good cause being shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an extension of time. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal on or before thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

         II.

         REQUEST FOR COPIES

         Plaintiff next requests that the Court issue an order directing the jail commander at the correctional facility where he is being held to make legal copies for Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that he asked the deputy about copying legal work, and was told that they do not make legal copies. Plaintiff states that this means he will have to send his only copy out when need be, which infringes on his access to the courts.

         The order requested by Plaintiff is a form of preliminary injunction. 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, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.2010).

         This action concerns Plaintiff's allegations of the denial of medical care while he was housed at Valley State Prison. Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and thus no complaint has yet been served nor have any defendants appeared.

         Plaintiff's request for copies has no relation to the defendants he has named or the causes of action this matter concerns. There is no jurisdiction generally over the jail commander at the jail where Plaintiff is currently being held. Thus, the pendency of this action provides no basis upon which to award Plaintiff injunctive relief. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-103.

         Furthermore, although inmates do have a constitutional right to access to the courts, it does not include unlimited access to the law library and photocopies. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.1989) overruled on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 581 U.S. 343, 350-55 (1996). There is no authority, statutory or Constitutional, that requires a State to provide free copying services for pleadings and papers to be filed with the court. Also, prison administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1970).

         Based on the foregoing, the Court will not order the jail commander to provide Plaintiff with legal copying services. Should Plaintiff decide to make hand-written copies of any filings for his records and require additional time, he may request an extension of time supported by good cause. Also, Plaintiff is informed that he may request copies of court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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