(PC) Machado v. Bustamante ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 OSCAR MACHADO, No. 2:18-cv-2943-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 A. BUSTAMANTE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the court issue an order requiring 18 defendants to provide him with meaningful access to the facility law library. ECF No. 28. He 19 states that defendants “are manipulating the COVID-19 crisis, utilizing the crisis as a pretext for 20 complete denial of all access to the facility law library.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s motion makes no 21 mention of available alternatives to physical presence in the law library, such as the paging 22 system. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion for an order directing prison officials to give him 23 physical access to the law library is denied without prejudice to its renewal at a later date should 24 the paging system (or other available alternatives) prove insufficient to provide plaintiff the 25 materials he needs to comply with any deadline in this case. 26 The All Writs Act gives federal courts the authority to issue “all writs necessary or 27 appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of 28 law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). It is meant to aid the court in the exercise and preservation of its wOoOe 2: £0 UV VETO RB MMVUTTCII OY FRU Vite PAY eT 1 | jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company vy. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). The 2 || United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in appropriate 3 || circumstances against persons who, “though not parties to the original action or engaged in 4 | wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper 5 || administration of justice.” United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). 6 || To obtain an order under the All Writs Act, the requested order must be “necessary.” This 7 || language requires that the relief requested is not available through some alternative means. 8 | Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 537 (1999). 9 The court is sympathetic to plaintiffs preference for physical access to the library, but 10 | reluctant to interfere with the institution’s attempt to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus 11 || absent a showing that plaintiff cannot meet a court-imposed deadline under the current system. If 12 | plaintiff finds that he cannot comply with a deadline, he may again file a motion seeking a court 13 || order to obtain greater library access. In any such motion, plaintiff should include the efforts he 14 | has made to complete his law work under the paging system (or any available alternatives to 15 || physical presence in the law library) and the efforts he has made to obtain physical access to the 16 | library through the institution. 17 Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for an order granting library access (ECF No. 28) is 18 || DENIED. 19 | DATED: August 31, 2020. $ on bj , / ZS 4 , Mm 4 20 EDMUND F. BRENNAN > UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28