Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00904/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00904-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS L. GOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. WALTERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00904-DAD-JDP

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 

ECF Nos. 23, 24

Plaintiff Thomas L. Goff is a current or former state prisoner proceeding without counsel 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has 

again filed two motions in close succession, requesting various forms of relief. First, he asks for 

a court order requiring his prison facility to recognize that his § 1983 litigation presents 

“legitimate needs subject to time constraints and sanctions.” ECF No. 23 at 7. The court can 

confirm that plaintiff is engaged in active § 1983 litigation. But the court has no jurisdiction over 

nonparties and cannot order prison personnel to provide plaintiff library access. If plaintiff were 

to ask the court to request (rather than order) the voluntary assistance of the litigation coordinator 

at his institution, such a request could be granted—if plaintiff is still housed in an institution and 

could provide the relevant contact information. (Based on plaintiff’s most recent address 

information, ECF No. 25, the court does not believe that he remains in an institution.) If, on the 

Case 1:18-cv-00904-KES-HBK Document 26 Filed 01/27/20 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

other hand, plaintiff believes that he is being denied access to constitutionally adequate law 

materials, he may wish to file a new case based on those allegations. 

Second, plaintiff has requested unspecified “ADA accommodations” under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12101 et seq., as well as under California state rules. ECF No. 24. Most of plaintiff’s request

refers to California state rules. Because the Eastern District of California is a federal court and 

not a state court, and because plaintiff does not identify what specific federal relief he seeks, the 

motion is denied at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:18-cv-00904-KES-HBK Document 26 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 2