Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05508/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05508-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT A. COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05508-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PLU STATUS; AND 

GRANTING HIS REQUEST FOR 

SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed a 

request for a second extension of time to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff also appears to 

request that the Court issue an order stating that the prison librarian must give him Priority Legal 

Usage (“PLU”) status, which is an administrative status used in some California prisons for 

inmates who have pending court deadlines or otherwise need extra time or priority in using law 

libraries. 

The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s motion for additional access to the prison law library. 

PLU status is not a status that is granted by this Court. The United States Supreme Court has 

cautioned lower courts to avoid entanglement in the day-to-day matters of prison administration. 

See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987) (federal courts should exercise restraint before 

interfering in the complex realm of prison administration); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 

(9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing themselves in minutiae of prison operations in 

name of constitution). Under some circumstances, the prevention of accessing the prison law 

library might rise to the level of violating an inmate’s constitutional right of access to the courts, 

see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), but such a claim would not accrue until the inmate 

suffered an actual injury, and relief would have to be sought in a new civil rights action. For these 

Case 4:14-cv-05508-YGR Document 14 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for PLU status.

Although the Court cannot interfere in the prison’s decision-making process regarding 

Plaintiff’s PLU status, it finds that the difficulties Plaintiff alleges in regularly accessing the prison 

law library constitute good cause to grant him another extension of time in which to file his 

amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a section extension of time to do so is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or by June 15, 2015.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by the deadline above, this action will be 

dismissed. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 13.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

May 14, 2015

Case 4:14-cv-05508-YGR Document 14 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2