Ildefonso v. Gage

Filing 12

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Issuance of Extraordinary Writ.Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(EJL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ARLYN P. ILDEFONSO,
Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN GAGE, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3110
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR
ISSUANCE OF
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

This matter is before me on the Petitioner, Arlyn Ildefonso’s, (“Petitioner”)
“Motion for Issuance of Extraordinary Writ” brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
(Filing No. 9.) This case is currently pending before me on a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the Petitioner’s motion, he
seeks an order from the court directing the respondent, Brian Gage, to:
[A.] . . . allow the Petitioner unrestricted access to the Law Libraries at
the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (“TSCI”) for a minimum of
three (3) hours per day, as needed and as requested by the Petitioner and
for the date and times that are requested by the Petitioner, for the
duration of the above captioned case before this Court, which would
include any necessary appeals to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and the U.S. Supreme Court;
[B.] . . . [i]mmediately place the phone numbers for A.) Clerks of the
U.S. District Court-Lincoln; B.) Clerk of the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals; C.) Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court; and D.) Nebraska
Attorney Generals Office, onto the Petitioner[’]s Confidential Calling
List, . . . ;
[C.] . . . to ORDER that the Respondent is directed to make any copy
that the Petitioner needs made, for the prosecution of this action, at the
normal rate charged for copies.

(Filing No. 9 at CM/ECF pp. 9-10.)
Prisoners are entitled to “a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed
violations of fundamental rights to the courts.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825
(1977). The right of meaningful access to court requires prison officials to provide
indigent inmates with either an adequate law library or adequate assistance from
persons trained in the law. Id. at 828. “The tools [that must] be provided are those
that inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in
order to challenge the conditions of their confinement.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 355 (1996). The Petitioner seeks to enforce this right, however, through an
extraordinary writ brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Under Section 1651,
federal courts may issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)
(emphasis added).
The Petitioner’s motion sets out various instances throughout the state court
proceedings underlying his habeas corpus action in which his access to the law library
was limited to various dates and times, and also sets out that prison rules and
regulations prevented him from photocopying some materials (i.e., he was forced to
sit in the library and take notes over these materials rather than photocopying them).
While a court may issue orders in aid of its own jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a), the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his ability to litigate this
action has been so impeded that he cannot effectively prosecute this case. Indeed,
since the Petitioner filed this case on June 6, 2013, I have granted him two extensions
of time in which to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See Filing
No. 6, and Text Order dated October 17, 2013.) He has not demonstrated any
prejudice that cannot be cured by granting him extensions of time, which I have done
liberally, and will continue to do on a motion-by-motion basis.

2

The Petitioner’s claims that the respondent is denying him access to the courts
is not otherwise cognizable in this action. The federal habeas corpus statute is
“explicitly and historically designed to provide the means for a state prisoner to attack
the validity of his confinement[.]” See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90
(1973).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petitioner’s “Motion for Issuance of
Extraordinary Writ” (Filing No. 9) is denied.
Dated October 22, 2013.
BY THE COURT

__________________________________________
Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

3