(HC) Morehouse v. Warden

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JODY MOREHOUSE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00670-KES-SAB-HC

Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO v. FILE OBJECTIONS

(ECF No. 31) Respondent.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 2, 2025, the Court also received the instant motion for extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendation. (ECF No. 31.) Petitioner alleges that he has been denied access to the law library due to staff shortages. Petitioner requests that the Court grant him a sixty-day extension of time to file objections, order his facility to grant Petitioner access to the law library as a priority library user, order his facility to replace ink cartridges, order his facility to process all print requests. A civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge his conditions of confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141–42 (1991); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The All Writs Act allows a federal court “to issue such commands . . . as may ee ene IEEE I INI IOI IEE

be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained.” Pa. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 40 (1985) (citation omitted). However, Petitioner does not establish that he is unable to litigate his petition for writ of habeas corpus pending before this Court based on the above allegations.! Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED to and including November 10, 2025, to file his objections to the findings and recommendation. No further extensions will be granted absent good cause because of the time now given to object. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _September 4, 2025 _ Of STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge 27); Petitioner asserts that the print requests concern legal and medical research needed in ongoing cases. However, Petitioner’s medical problems are not at issue in the instant habeas proceeding.