Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/25/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

10

Plaintiff,

11

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00446-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
COURT ORDER

v.
(ECF No. 25)

12
13

GALLAGHER, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

17

first amended complaint, filed July 5, 2011, against Defendant Romero for deliberate indifference

18

to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Defendants Gallagher and

19

Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and failure to protect in

20

violation of the Eighth Amendment. On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court

21

order. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff is seeking an order directing the Warden and Litigation Coordinator

22

to provide him access to the law library and unrestricted legal photocopying.

23

For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield v.

24

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires

25

Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and

26

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be

27

fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial

28

decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149
1

1

(2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).

2

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

3

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

4

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

5

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the

6

court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

7

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the

8

Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

9

As Plaintiff has previously been informed, the pendency of this action provides no basis upon

10

which to award Plaintiff the injunctive relief he is seeking. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,

11

523 U.S. 83, 102-03, 107 (1998). The relief requested by Plaintiff is not related to the underlying

12

claims against Defendants Gallagher and Romero. Since the relief sought would not remedy the

13

violation of the Federal rights at issue here, the Court cannot grant the requested relief and Plaintiff’s

14

motion for a court order, filed September 16, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
1c20kb

October 25, 2011

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2