FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
ORDER GRANTING THIRTY DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order directing the defendants and the law librarian to provide him with copies of legal documents which he gave to "P. Ramos, Jr." over three weeks ago, which Plaintiff needs to comply with this court's recent orders. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff states that Defendants M. Lirones and S. Parks are intentionally interfering with his access to the courts and making him unable to file an amended pleading. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks an order to be provided with his personal typewriter, typewriting supplies and accessories, and legal books which he purchased for the purpose of litigating this and other civil matters. (Id.)
As an initial matter and as stated in both the recently issued screening order as well as the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff's prior motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, there is no actual case or controversy before the Court at this time and Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009); 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Further, requests for prospective relief are limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court ensure the relief "is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right."
Similarly, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over Plaintiff's litigation issues. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. The Court cannot order prison staff to provide litigation supplies to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The issue is not that Plaintiff's allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum. However, the seriousness of Plaintiff's accusations concerning his ability to pursue legal matters on his own behalf cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 ("[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.") This action is simply not the proper vehicle for conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks.
The court notes that Plaintiff's first amended complaint is overdue. (See Doc. 17.) Although he has not requested an extension of time to do so, given the contents of this motion, Plaintiff is granted
Accordingly, the Court
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.