Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al.

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Motion For Order Granting Plaintiff Right To Obtain Copies From Law Library On Demand (Doc. 6 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/28/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL GONZALES,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF RIGHT TO
OBTAIN COPIES FROM LAW LIBRARY
ON DEMAND

A. PODSAKOFF, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00924-SKO (PC)

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

(Doc. 6)
15
16

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 18, 2015. On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff
18 filed a motion seeking an order granting him the right to obtain copies from the law library on
19 demand. Plaintiff contends that Wymer, the law librarian, is refusing to provide photocopy
20 service.
21

The pendency of this action does not give Plaintiff standing to seek orders exempting him

22 from the prison law library’s rules and regulations. See e.g., Summers v. Earth Island Institute,
23 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (for every form of relief sought in federal court,
24 the moving party must establish standing); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61,
25 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992). The day-to-day management of prisons rests firmly within the sound
26 discretion of prison official and federal courts do not have general jurisdiction to intervene,
27 regardless of whether Plaintiff perceives prison officials’ decisions to be wrongful. See e.g.,
28 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994) (federal

1 courts are courts of limited jurisdiction); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83, 115 S.Ct. 2293
2 (1995) (disapproving of the involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day-management of
3 prisons).
Moreover, at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff’s concern over serving filings on the

4

5 Defendants via the Attorney General’s Office is premature. Once Defendants are served and
6 appear in this action, they will be served with Plaintiff’s filings via the Court’s electronic filing
7 system.1
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order granting him the right to obtain copies on

8

9 demand from the law library is HEREBY DENIED.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

October 28, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

Plaintiff is directed to re-read section IV on page 4 of the Informational Order. (Doc. 4.)

2