Ivan Lee Matthews v. Liles et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING Motion for Return Copies 17 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/4/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN LEE MATTHEWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. LILES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00083-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN
COPIES
(ECF No. 17)

Plaintiff Ivan Lee Matthews (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge

19

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)

20

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for return of copies. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff

21

states in his motion that he filed a form with the law librarians at his institution requesting legal

22

copying services, and was directed to send his documents through the mail. Plaintiff complains that

23

the procedure is ineffectual because he is suing one of the law librarians. He seeks an order requiring

24

the prison provide him a return copy of his fourth amended complaint.

25

The Court construes this motion as a motion for injunctive relief against unspecified officials at

26

his institution. The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in

27

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1

28

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited
1

1

to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding.

2

Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff’s allegations that he will not be

3

provided copies of his documents when utilizing the law library’s procedures at his institution are

4

purely speculative. Furthermore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the prison officials generally to

5

order any deviation from the normal procedures based on Plaintiff’s unsupported assertions.

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for return of copies (ECF No. 17) is HEREBY DENIED.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 4, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2