United States District Court, E.D. California
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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
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 ...