Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00695/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00695-12/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

KING MWASI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORCORAN STATE PRISON,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00695-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LAW 

LIBRARY ACCESS

(Doc. 44) 

Plaintiff, King Mwasi, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action on his claims in 

the Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Dr. Mahoney, Dr. Blanchard, Urbano 

LCSW, and Doe 9 for deliberate indifference of Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment; against Defendant Guards Cordova, Torres, and J. Gomez for excessive 

use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendant Guards Cordova, Torres, J. 

Gomez, and Sgt. Holland regarding the conditions of confinement (i.e. “interference with meals”) 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Dr. Nguyen in his official capacity for 

violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. (Docs. 32, 43.) 

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order for him to be granted physical 

access ("not 'paging'") to the law library a minimum of ten hours a week. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff 

argues that when there is a court deadline, his access to the law library is sporadic; that without a 

court deadline his access to the law library is limited to two hours every few months; and that 

Case 1:13-cv-00695-DAD-JLT Document 47 Filed 05/12/15 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

there are no deadlines in this Court's orders thus far. (Id.) However, several orders with 

deadlines have issued in this case. (See Docs. 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 21, 26, 28, 32, 34, 36, 38.) As is 

evidenced by various orders in this case, requests by inmates for extensions of time to comply 

with orders from this court are routinely granted where there is a showing of good cause. (See 

Docs. 12, 21, 28, 34, 36, 38.) Further, Plaintiff's argument that deadlines for responding to 

discovery are not contained in court orders is correct but, of course, most discovery seeks factual 

information, not the type of information which can be obtained from the law library. However, if 

it turns out he needs more time to respond to a discovery request, he can apply for that relief to 

the Court which would result in an order.1 However, this argument is not yet ripe as the 

defendants have not been served and answered for a Discovery and Scheduling Order to issue. 

The most recently issued order directs Plaintiff to submit documents for service within thirty day 

of the date that it issued, April 28, 2015. (Doc. 45.) Thus, there is a currently pending court 

deadline that Plaintiff may show prison staff to assist in his access to the law library. 

The Court recognizes that prison administrators Ashould 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.@ Whitley v. 

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). Thus, 

the Court shall defer to the prison=s policies and practices in granting access to the law library and 

materials to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for law library access, 

filed April 23, 2015 (Doc. 44), be DENIED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 On the other hand, this Court currently has before it, literally, thousands of cases involving inmate-litigants who 

manage to obtain sufficient, though minimal, access to the law library without the Court issuing orders setting forth

discovery response deadlines. In addition, the prison officials—not this Court—is best situated to determine the 

priority for inmate access to the law library.

Case 1:13-cv-00695-DAD-JLT Document 47 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2