Pineda

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WALTER GRABLE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00720-HBK (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

v.

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