The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated in a federal penitentiary in Somers, Connecticut, filed this action on September 9, 1996. In his Complaint, the plaintiff claims that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996), violates numerous rights afforded him under the United States Constitution as well as other federal laws. The plaintiff claims that he "represents several Federal and Criminal cases in the District of Connecticut, New York and United States Supreme Court," Complaint P5, and that the PLRA's impact on these suits as well as on possible future litigation brought by him has resulted and will result in constitutional violations. Id. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment and compensatory and punitive damages. No other action brought by the plaintiff currently is pending before this Court.
I. THE COURT SHALL GRANT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE OUT OF TIME ITS MOTION TO DISMISS.
The Court directed the defendant to file a Response to the Court's September 10, 1996 Show Cause Order on or before September 19, 1996 and directed the plaintiff to file any and all Oppositions thereto on or before September 27, 1996. Counsel for the defendant alleges in the Motion to File Out of Time that he mistakenly read the Order as requiring a Response on or before September 27, 1996. As a result, the defendant's Response to the Court's Show Cause Order was filed eight (8) days after the Court's deadline.
The Court finds that the defendant's error was excusable neglect and further finds that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by granting the defendant an enlargement of time within which to file its Response.
Accordingly, the Court shall grant the defendant's Motion to File Out of Time Its Motion to Dismiss and shall find that the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was filed in a timely manner.
II. THE COURT SHALL GRANT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS SUIT.
In order for a case to be justiciable in a federal court, the plaintiff must have standing to sue in that court. To have standing, the plaintiff must allege that the personal injury is "likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 82 L. Ed. 2d 556, 104 S. Ct. 3315 (1984). Stated another way, the plaintiff must allege that a favorable court decision is likely to remedy the injury. See L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 108 (2d ed. 1988).
The plaintiff has no standing in this case because this Court is without power to redress the injuries alleged. The plaintiff calls upon this Court to rule upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress as applied to the plaintiff's litigation before other federal courts and as it might apply to future litigation. The plaintiff, however, has not shown how a ruling by this Court that the PLRA is unconstitutional will have any binding effect on the courts adjudicating the cases in which the alleged injuries have occurred.