Marti v. Padilla, et al

Filing 213

ORDER DENYING 184 189 Motion for Court Order Directing Law Librarian to Make Copies, or in the Alternative, Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff's Inability to Obtain Copies signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/10/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.
F. PADILLA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

1:07-cv-00066-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COURT ORDER DIRECTING LAW
LIBRARIAN TO MAKE COPIES, OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO OBTAIN
COPIES
(Docs. 184, 189.)

_____________________________/
16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND
Alex Lamota Marti (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

20

action on January 12, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Amended Complaint filed

21

by Plaintiff on May 1, 2008. (Doc. 25.) On July 29, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary

22

judgment. (Doc. 173.) On August 5, 2010, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an

23

opposition to the motion within twenty days. (Doc. 176.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an

24

opposition to the motion, despite being granted an extension of time. (Docs. 180, 190, 193.)

25

On September 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing the law librarian at

26

the prison to make copies of legal documents for Plaintiff, or in the alternative, a court order denying

27

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 184.) On November 15, 2010 and December 27,

28

1

1

2010, Plaintiff filed supplements to his motion. (Docs. 189, 191.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before

2

the Court.

3

II.

4

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Plaintiff claims he needs copies of legal documents exceeding 100 pages to oppose

5

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to the copies because

6

he is required to file an opposition “under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(e), and

7

Local Rules, Rule 56-260(b), and as ordered by the Court in its Orders entered on March 30, 2010,

8

and August 4, 2010 (Documents Number 165, and 176 respectively).” (Motion, Doc. 184 at 2:7-11.)

9

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests an order denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

10

the grounds that he is unable to present facts essential to oppose the motion, due to the prison’s

11

refusal to copy his legal documents.

12

Plaintiff asserts that he has been refused copies exceeding the 100-page limit by the prison

13

law librarian, pursuant to the Department Operations Manual, Section 101120.15, which states, “In

14

no event shall staff be required to duplicate a legal document exceeding 100 pages in length in the

15

absence of a court order directing the duplication.” (Id. at 6:4-7 and Exh. E.) Plaintiff argues that by

16

limiting his copies, the prison is denying him access to the court.

17

Discussion

18

Plaintiff is requesting a court order directing the prison to change its procedures as they apply

19

to Plaintiff. The Court recognizes that prison administrators "should be accorded wide-ranging

20

deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to

21

preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Whitley v. Albers, 475

22

U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). Moreover, the Court

23

lacks jurisdiction to issue an order requiring the law librarian to make extra copies for Plaintiff. See

24

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Therefore, the

25

Court shall defer to the prison's policies and practices in limiting prisoners to 100 copies.

26
27
28

Plaintiff argues that he cannot comply with the Court’s orders or rules unless he is able to
obtain copies of documents exceeding 100 pages. The Court’s orders and rules do not require, or
2

1

even encourage, the submission of voluminous documents. Plaintiff’s remedy is to separate his

2

opposition to the motion for summary judgment into documents of 100 pages or less. Should

3

Plaintiff require additional time, he must request an extension of time before the prior deadline

4

expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Plaintiff is advised that he should endeavor to use concise language in

5

his court documents and should only submit exhibits which are necessary to support his arguments.

6

The Court does not routinely grant leave for the submission of voluminous documents or extraneous

7

exhibits.

8
9
10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court order
directing the law librarian to make extra copies, or a court order denying Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, is DENIED.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:
6i0kij

August 10, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3