UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-61610-BLOOM

DYNZA MACKEY,

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

ORDER 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the pro se Movant’s “Motion for Further Extension 

of Time.” ECF No. [18]. Movant filed his initial Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

in August. ECF No. [1]. After Magistrate Judge Reid ordered Movant to amend the Motion, he 

moved for an extension of time, which Judge Reid granted. ECF Nos. [8] & [11]. 

Movant has again moved for a further extension, asserting that he needs more time to file 

his Amended Motion because he is unable to access his legal documents or the law library at his 

institution of confinement. ECF No. [18]. He claims that his institution withheld his legal materials 

due to the projected closing of the facility, and is continuing to deny him access even though the 

facility closure has now been delayed until next year. Id. at 2. As such, in addition to his request 

for an extension of time, he requests the Court order the facility to provide him his legal materials 

and access to the law library. Id.

It is well-settled that inmates are not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations 

simply based on an inability to access the law library. See Akins v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086, 

1089 (11th Cir. 2000). Regardless, even if Movant was so entitled, he has not alleged any specific 

Case 0:20-cv-61610-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2020 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 20-cv-61610-BLOOM

2

facts to suggest what issues he wishes to research in the law library in preparation for filing his 

Amended Motion, nor has he alleged any specific facts to suggest that why he needs his legal 

documents to draft the Amended Motion.

Moreover, “courts should be particularly deferential to the informed discretion of 

corrections officials” in the implementation of prison regulations and procedures. See Turner v. 

Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90 (1987) (citing Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union, 433 U.S. 119, 

132 (1977)). Here, Movant does not provide any facts to suggest that such extraordinary 

circumstances exist that would warrant Court interference with prison procedures regarding access 

to the law library at his facility of confinement. 

Lastly, to the extent the Court construes Movant’s request as one for injunctive relief, his 

Motion fails because: (1) he has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 

and (2) his facility of confinement is a non-party to this action, and he has not established any facts 

that the facility is in privity with the opposing party in this case. See Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. 

Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that a movant must establish a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits as one of the requirements to warrant injunctive 

relief); ADT LLC v. NorthStar Alarm Services, LLC, 853 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017) (finding 

that an injunction can only bind a nonparty if the “relationship between the one who is a party on 

the record and the non-party is sufficiently close”) (internal citation omitted). 

However, the Court is not unsympathetic to Movant’s situation, and will afford him a final 

extension of time to file his Amended Motion to Vacate. Therefore, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

1. Movant’s “Motion for Further Extension of Time,” ECF No. [18] is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART. The request for an extension of time is GRANTED,

Case 0:20-cv-61610-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2020 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 20-cv-61610-BLOOM

3

but the request for an order compelling the institution to provide Movant his legal 

materials and access to the law library is DENIED. 

2. The Clerk shall resend to Petitioner a copy of Judge Reid’s prior Order to Amend, ECF 

No. [5], and a § 2255 form motion. 

3. Petitioner shall file his Amended Motion to Vacate by November 9, 2020, complying 

with all other requirements of Judge Reid’s prior Order. 

4. No further extensions of time will be considered absent circumstances that are truly 

extraordinary. 

DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Florida, this 9th day of October, 2020.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Dynza Mackey 

19578-104 

D. Ray James 

Correctional Institution 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

Post Office Box 2000 

Folkston, GA 31537 

PRO SE

Noticing 2255 US Attorney 

Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov

Case 0:20-cv-61610-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2020 Page 3 of 3