From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzales v. Podsakoff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 28, 2015
Case No. 1:15-cv-00924-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2015)

Opinion

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

10-28-2015

MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. A. PODSAKOFF, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF RIGHT TO OBTAIN COPIES FROM LAW LIBRARY ON DEMAND (Doc. 6)

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 18, 2015. On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order granting him the right to obtain copies from the law library on demand. Plaintiff contends that Wymer, the law librarian, is refusing to provide photocopy service.

The pendency of this action does not give Plaintiff standing to seek orders exempting him from the prison law library's rules and regulations. See e.g., Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (for every form of relief sought in federal court, the moving party must establish standing); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992). The day-to-day management of prisons rests firmly within the sound discretion of prison official and federal courts do not have general jurisdiction to intervene, regardless of whether Plaintiff perceives prison officials' decisions to be wrongful. See e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995) (disapproving of the involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day-management of prisons).

Moreover, at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff's concern over serving filings on the Defendants via the Attorney General's Office is premature. Once Defendants are served and appear in this action, they will be served with Plaintiff's filings via the Court's electronic filing system.

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

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an order granting him the right to obtain copies on demand from the law library is HEREBY DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 28 , 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Gonzales v. Podsakoff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 28, 2015
Case No. 1:15-cv-00924-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2015)
Case details for

Gonzales v. Podsakoff

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. A. PODSAKOFF, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 28, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:15-cv-00924-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2015)