Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02346/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02346-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN MARSHALL TOMPKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2346 GEB EFB P 

vs.

STEPHENS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On November 16, 2009, plaintiff requested an order directing staff at Salinas

Valley State Prison to provide him with greater access to the prison’s law library. Dckt. No. 28. 

Plaintiff claims that he has been in administrative segregation since September 4, 2009, and that

in a 60-day period, he was allowed library access only once. He claims that he can only proceed

in this action if he is given more frequent access to the law library. Plaintiff also notes that he

was denied “Preferred Legal User” status because he does not have a court-imposed deadline for

any filing. The court has reviewed the docket in this case and finds that plaintiff is not under a

present obligation to submit documents within a time certain. Plaintiff has not shown any actual

injury with respect to this litigation and therefore, has not demonstrated that his right of access to

the courts is being impaired. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49(1996). The court will

Case 2:07-cv-02346-GEB-EFB Document 45 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

not set a deadline merely for the purpose of affording plaintiff additional library time. 

Moreover, the docket reflects that on or around December 17, 2009, plaintiff was transferred

from Salinas Valley State Prison to Kern Valley State Prison, rendering the instant request moot. 

Dckt. No. 33. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d

517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 16, 2009 motion is denied

without prejudice.

Dated: May 3, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-02346-GEB-EFB Document 45 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2