Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423-17/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

TODD ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REQUESTING COURT TO ORDER 

OFFICIAL(S) AT CORCORAN STATE

PRISON TO GRANT PLAINTIFF PLU 

STATUS

(ECF No. 93)

Todd Ashker (“Plaintiff”) is a state inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order officials(s) at 

Corcoran State Prison to grant him Privileged Legal User (“PLU”) status through July 7, 2023. 

(ECF No. 93). Plaintiff alleges that he can only access the law library if he is given PLU status, 

and he is only granted PLU status if he has a court-ordered deadline within thirty days. Plaintiff 

alleges that while he currently has no such deadline, he needs access to the law library now so he 

can do research, including on the cites in the scheduling order and on issues related to discovery. 

Additionally, while his institution of confinement claims that inmates can receive paged copies of 

cases via institutional mail, Plaintiff has personally requested case citations via this process but 

has never received anything back in response.

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff appears to be asking this Court to grant 

him a blanket exception to Corcoran State Prison’s current policy regarding law library access. 

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 95 Filed 10/27/22 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

The Court declines to do so. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (“Running a prison is an 

inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of 

resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches 

of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the 

responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial 

restraint. Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have ... additional reason to 

accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.”) (citation omitted); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 

U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (“[T]he problems that arise in the day-to-day operation of a corrections 

facility are not susceptible of easy solutions. Prison administrators therefore should be accorded 

wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their 

judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional 

security.”).

This case is not proceeding on a claim based on lack of access to the courts or the law 

library. “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 

court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 

Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Moreover, Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that the alleged policy is impeding his

ability to litigate this action. Plaintiff was recently able to make several filings, including a 

motion to stay (ECF 85), a reply in support of his motion to stay (ECF No. 89), his scheduling 

and discovery statement (ECF No. 86), and the current motion (ECF No. 93). At least some of 

these filings include legal citations. Moreover, Plaintiff states that he requested PLU status on 

October 12, 2022, but Plaintiff filed this motion without waiting to receive the response. (ECF 

No. 93, p. 3). Finally, Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that he will be unable to meet any 

particular deadline in this case. 

Therefore, the Court sees no reason to act at this time. Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 

1303 (2001) (“[I]njunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the 

most critical and exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably 

clear.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If, as the case proceeds, Plaintiff is 

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 95 Filed 10/27/22 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

unable to meet a specific deadline, Plaintiff may file a motion for an extension of that deadline or 

for other relief.

1

 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 93) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

If Plaintiff requests an extension due to a lack of law library access, he should attach his request for law 

library access and/or paging services, as well as the institution’s response to his request (if any), to his motion for an 

extension of time.

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 95 Filed 10/27/22 Page 3 of 3