Ivory v. Tilton, et al.
Filing
50
ORDER DENYING Motion for Court Order Directing Prison to Follow Rules and Regulations and Allow Plaintiff Further Access to The Law Library 48 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/6/11. (Hellings, J)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
NORMAN IVORY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
M. V. SEXTON, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
1:09-cv-01272-OWW-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COURT ORDER DIRECTING PRISON
TO FOLLOW RULES AND
REGULATIONS AND ALLOW
PLAINTIFF FURTHER ACCESS TO THE
LAW LIBRARY
(Doc. 48.)
17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
18
June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing the prison to follow the rules and
19
regulations regarding inmate access to the law library, to enable Plaintiff further access to the law library.
20
(Doc. 48.)
21
The court recognizes that prison administrators "should be accorded wide-ranging deference in
22
the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve
23
internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,
24
321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). Accordingly, the court shall defer
25
to the prison's policies and practices in granting access to the law library.
26
Further, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order. The order requested by Plaintiff
27
would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds. This action is proceeding against
28
defendants based on events occurring in 2008 and 2009. Plaintiff now requests a court order affecting
1
present and future actions. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims upon which this
2
action proceeds, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion
3
must be denied. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley
4
Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102
5
S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). Should Plaintiff require additional time to meet a court deadline, he should
6
file a motion for extension of time.
7
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court order
8
directing the prison to follow the rules and regulations regarding inmate access to the law library is
9
DENIED.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
6i0kij
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
June 6, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
]]>
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?
