Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-34/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

TO STAY AND REQUEST FOR THE 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 169). 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR AN ORDER UNDER THE 

ALL WRITS ACT BE DENIED

(ECF No. 169)

Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 

request to stay the scheduling order. (ECF No. 169). Plaintiff generally alleges that he is unable to 

access the law library and the law librarian is retaliating against Plaintiff by restricting his access. 

Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court stay the scheduling order “until Defendants fix these 

ongoing law library problems.” (Id., p. 3). Plaintiff also asks the Court to intervene and order that 

Plaintiff be allowed full access to the law library. Plaintiff also renews his request for the 

appointment of counsel.

The Court will deny, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 175 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 3
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

for the reasons set forth the Court’s prior orders. (See ECF Nos. 30, 76, 142). 

The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request for a stay. Plaintiff does not identify any 

pending motion or deadline that he cannot meet because of his limited access to the library. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has since filed two legal briefs that indicate Plaintiff’s continuing ability to 

litigate this case. (See ECF Nos. 170, 172). 

The Court will also recommend that Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring prison 

officials to allow Plaintiff full access to the law library be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (under 

the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their 

respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”).“[I]njunctive relief 

under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent 

circumstances,” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (citations and internal quotation 

marks omitted), and Plaintiff has failed to show that such circumstances exist here. Moreover, 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that non-party correctional officials are impeding his ability to 

litigate this case. Hammler v. Haas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48377, *3-4 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 

2019) (“Thus, use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in prisoner civil rights cases where nonparty correctional officials are impeding the prisoner-plaintiff’s ability to litigate his pending 

action.”). As discussed above, Plaintiff has been able to file legal briefs and has not identified a 

particular deadline he is unable to meet. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an order under the All Writs Act (ECF No. 169) be DENIED. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 175 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Further, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to stay the scheduling order and for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 175 Filed 09/11/23 Page 3 of 3