Pineda

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER GRABLE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00720-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

13 v.

14 SERGIO PINEDA, (Doc. No. 21) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies filed November 6, 2025. (Doc. 18 No. 21, “Motion”). Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court directing state officials at the Bob 19 Wiley Detention Center to provide him copies of his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).1 (Id. at 20 1-2). Plaintiff states he has made three requests to the law library for copies, but to date his 21 requests have been refused. (Id.). The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion seeking 22 mandamus relief. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003) (explaining that 23 courts may recharacterize a pro se motion to better reflect the “substance of a pro se motion's 24 claim and its underlying legal basis”). 25 The federal mandamus statue provides: “[t]he district courts shall have original 26 1 On October 20,…