Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01336-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

CHARLES DAVID WILLIAMS, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE MARTEL, Warden

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-01336 DLB (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

ENTITLED “MOTION FOR COURT ORDER”

[Doc. 9]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Court Doc. 8.) 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 9, 2008. On

September 17, 2008, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the petition. (Court

Doc. 5.) 

On October 6, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion entitled “Motion for Court Order.” (Court

Doc. 9.) Petitioner requests the Court to issue an order directing that the prison allow him use of

a typewriter to prepare his legal work. (Id.) Petitioner’s request is essentially for a preliminary

injunction and shall be construed as such. 

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate either 1) a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or 2) the existence of

serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.

Case 1:08-cv-01336-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 11/20/08 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

First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir.1987).

The Ninth Circuit has determined that “inmates have no right to a typewriter to prepare

legal documents where court rules permit pro se litigants to hand-write their pleadings.” Phillips

v. Hurst, 477 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9 Cir. 2007) (citing Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 776 th

F.2d 851 858 (9 Cir. 1985). Pursuant to Local Rule 7-130(b), this Court accepts documents for th

filing that are hand-written. Because there is no constitutional right for entitlement to a

typewriter, Petitioner’s cannot make the necessary showing of entitlement to a preliminary

injunction and his motion must be DENIED. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for a court

order directing the prison to allow use of a typewriter is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 20, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01336-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 11/20/08 Page 2 of 2