Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00438/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00438-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND THOMAS KOCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

Defendant(s).

1:15-cv-00438 SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN 

INVESTIGATOR AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 9)

45-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a 90-

day extension of time to file a first amended complaint. (Doc, 7.) Plaintiff did not justify his 

need for this extension other than to indicate that if he is to be thorough, his list of complaints 

cannot be brief and that documentation to support his claims exists, but that the facility refuses to 

release it to him. (Id.) 

An order issued on January 28, 2016, advising Plaintiff of various screening standards, 

informing him that documentation was not necessary at screening, and granting him 45-days to 

file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting

the following: (for a second time) that an investigator be appointed; that hospital officials be 

ordered to give him copies of every rule violation he has and all documentation, and “every 

‘denial or rights’ form filed concerning” him; and another extension of time to file his first 

Case 1:15-cv-00438-SKO Document 10 Filed 02/09/16 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

27

28

2

amended complaint. (Doc. 9.)

“‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when 

authorized by Congress. . . .’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 

United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086 (1976)). There is no provision for 

the appointment of an investigator to explore Plaintiff’s claims of mistreatment.

Plaintiff’s request for hospital officials to be ordered to provide him copies of 

documentation is construed as a request for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s Complaint 

was screened and dismissed since it did not state any cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Doc. 6.) Thus, there is no actual case or controversy before the Court at this time and the Court 

lacks the jurisdiction to issue the orders sought by Plaintiff. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 

129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009); 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Further, assuming that Plaintiff is able to amend to state a claim, the 

pendency of this action will not entitle Plaintiff to the issuance of a preliminary injunction aimed 

at securing his ability to litigate effectively or efficiently. Id. The Court’s jurisdiction will be 

limited to the issuance of orders that remedy the underlying legal claim. Id. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an investigator and preliminary 

injunction, filed on February 3, 2016, is DENIED; and 

(2) Plaintiff is granted forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order 

in which to file a first amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00438-SKO Document 10 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 2