Bodnar v. CDCR, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING 15 Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Stating that He is Proceeding in Pro Per in this Matter signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/16/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 THOMAS BODNAR, v. 10 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER STATING THAT HE IS PROCEEDING IN PRO PER IN THIS MATTER Plaintiff, 9 11 Case No. 1:16-cv-01398-SAB (PC) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., (ECF No. 15) Defendants 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff Thomas Bodnar is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for an order directed to the program 19 director at the correctional facility where he is being held, filed May 15, 2017. (ECF No. 15.) 20 Plaintiff seeks for the order to state that he is proceeding in pro per in this action, which he 21 contends is required so that he may be given law library access, provided copying services, and 22 be allowed a box for legal work. (ECF No. 15.) 23 Plaintiff’s request is granted, and the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 24 ATTN: Program Director, Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility 25 1627 S. Hargrave Street, Banning, California 92220 26 This order confirms that Plaintiff Thomas Bodnar, BK#201717250, is proceeding in pro 27 per in this civil rights action. 28 /// 1 The Court leaves to the discretion of the correctional facility staff and officials the 1 2 manner in which Plaintiff will be provided law library access, copying services, and access to his 3 legal paperwork, consistent with the safety and security needs of the institution. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: May 16, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?