Morello v. Ryan, 1:15-cv-11562

Plaintiff Steven Morello, an MCI‑Shirley prisoner, filed a motion asking the federal court to order the Superintendent to provide photocopies of state‑court documents and transcripts for a forthcoming habeas petition.
Morello says his prison denied photocopy requests because the documents were not originals; he contends this denial prevents his access to the courts.
He filed a motion (not a complaint) in this district court seeking relief to obtain copies before filing habeas pleadings.
The court noted Morello had not commenced a civil action by filing a complaint as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested injunctive relief.
The court explained that to state an access‑to‑courts claim Morello must show an actionable claim was lost or currently prevented, and that the record did not show such prevention—he appears to mistakenly believe he must file the state record appendix with his habeas petition.
The court gave Morello 42 days to file a complaint accompanied by an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and a certified prison account statement if he wishes to pursue a civil rights action; the court noted a separate §2254 habeas petition was filed in a different docket.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court can order the prison to make photocopies based on Morello’s motion	Morello: prison’s denial of photocopies prevents filing his habeas petition and denies access to courts	Implied (through court’s reasoning): no formal defendant motion filed here; relief requires a properly‑filed case and factual showing of prevented access	Court: lacks jurisdiction to grant requested relief because no complaint was filed; motion premature
Whether Morello states an access‑to‑courts claim	Morello: denial of photocopies amounts to denial of access	Court: plaintiff must show an actionable claim was lost or filing is currently prevented	Court: record does not show prevention; Morello appears able to file habeas without state record appendix
Procedural requirements to pursue relief in this court	Morello: sought relief by motion only	N/A (court applied procedural rules)	Court: civil actions commence by complaint; injunctive relief must relate to relief requested in complaint; Morello must file complaint and IFP with certified account to proceed
Filing fee/IFP requirement for incarcerated litigant	Morello: not addressed in motion	N/A	Court: if he files a civil complaint, he must file IFP and certified prison account; fee obligations apply when funds exist

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 424 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2005) (injunctive relief must relate to relief requested in the complaint)
Adair v. England, 193 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.D.C. 2002) (when no complaint is filed, court lacks jurisdiction to entertain motion for preliminary injunctive relief)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (to state an access‑to‑courts claim, plaintiff must show an actionable claim was lost or presentation of the claim is prevented)