“[I]njunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the 27 most critical and exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably 28 clear.”
How later courts described this case
- “[I]njunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the 27 most critical and exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably 28 clear.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 TODD ASHKER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-ADA-EPG (PC)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUESTING COURT TO ORDER
12 v. OFFICIAL(S) AT CORCORAN STATE
PRISON TO GRANT PLAINTIFF PLU
13 C. PFEIFFER, et al., STATUS
14 Defendants. (ECF No. 93)
15
16 Todd Ashker (“Plaintiff”) is a state inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
17 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18 On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order officials(s) at
19 Corcoran State Prison to grant him Privileged Legal User (“PLU”) status through July 7, 2023.
20 (ECF No. 93). Plaintiff alleges that he can only access the law library if he is given PLU status,
21 and he is only granted PLU status if he has a court-ordered deadline within thirty days. Plaintiff
22 alleges that while he currently has no such deadline, he needs access to the law library now so he
23 can do research, including on the cites in the scheduling order and on issues related to discovery.
24 Additionally, while his institution of confinement claims that inmates can receive paged copies of
25 cases via institutional mail, Plaintiff has personally requested case citations via this process but
26 has never received anything back in response.
27 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff appears to be asking this Court to grant
28 him a blanket exception to Corcoran State Prison’s current policy regarding law library access.
1 The Court declines to do so. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (“Running a prison is an
2 inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of
3 resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches
4 of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the
5 responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial
6 restraint. Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have … additional reason to
7 accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.”) (citation omitted); Bell v. Wolfish, 441
8 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (“[T]he problems that arise in the day-to-day operation of a corrections
9 facility are not susceptible of easy solutions. Prison administrators therefore should be accorded
10 wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their
11 judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional
12 security.”).
13 This case is not proceeding on a claim based on lack of access to the courts or the law
14 library. “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the
15 court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v.
16 Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015).
17 Moreover, Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that the alleged policy is impeding his
18 ability to litigate this action. Plaintiff was recently able to make several filings, including a
19 motion to stay (ECF 85), a reply in support of his motion to stay (ECF No. 89), his scheduling
20 and discovery statement (ECF No. 86), and the current motion (ECF No. 93). At least some of
21 these filings include legal citations. Moreover, Plaintiff states that he requested PLU status on
22 October 12, 2022, but Plaintiff filed this motion without waiting to receive the response. (ECF
23 No. 93, p. 3). Finally, Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that he will be unable to meet any
24 particular deadline in this case.
25 Therefore, the Court sees no reason to act at this time. Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301,
26 1303 (2001) (“[I]njunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the
27 most critical and exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably
28 clear.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If, as the case proceeds, Plaintiff is
1 | unable to meet a specific deadline, Plaintiff may file a motion for an extension of that deadline or
2 || for other relief.!
3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 93) is DENIED.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6] Dated: _ October 26, 2022 [Jee hey □□
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ' Tf Plaintiff requests an extension due to a lack of law library access, he should attach his request for law
library access and/or paging services, as well as the institution’s response to his request (if any), to his motion for an
28 | extension of time.