Goff v. Gamez et al

Filing 103

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Requests for Miscellaneous Relief re 101 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/13/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

THOMAS L. GOFF,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

v.

13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00937-AWI-EPG (PC)

GAMEZ, et al.,

14

(ECF NO. 101)
Defendants.

15
16

Thomas Goff (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was

18

dismissed for failure to prosecute on November 8, 2019. (ECF Nos. 89 & 90). Plaintiff

19

appealed on December 9, 2019. (ECF Nos. 91, 92, & 93).

20

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court. (EF No. 101, pgs. 6-8). In the

21

letter, Plaintiff states that he is currently at San Luis Obispo County Jail. Plaintiff alleges that

22

the Jail has a “non existing physical law library.” It does have a “Legal Research Associates”

23

department, but there is no staff to answer questions or provide materials. Plaintiff further

24

alleges that he requested “PLU-Status” in compliance with Jail policy, but was told that only a

25

judge could deem him pro-se. Plaintiff is still unable to obtain legal materials.

26
27
28
1

1

Plaintiff requests: 1) A Court order directing the Jail to recognize his § 1983 case1 and

2

his appeal to the Ninth Circuit as legitimate legal needs, with a copy of the order being sent to

3

the Facility Captain; 2) A copy of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and 3) That he be

4

allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in Appeal No. 19-17494.

5

All three of Plaintiff’s requests will be denied. Plaintiff’s first and second requests

6

appear to relate to Plaintiff’s allegation that he is not being provided with adequate law library

7

access, which is preventing Plaintiff from obtaining the legal materials he needs to prosecute

8

his case(s). However, this case is closed, and Plaintiff has appealed. If Plaintiff believes he is

9

being prevented from pursuing other case(s), or his appeal of the dismissal of this case, he may

10

file a new case based on the allegations in the letter2 or file an appropriate motion in the

11

action(s) that are ongoing or with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

12

As to Plaintiff’s third request, it will be denied as moot. Plaintiff was granted in forma

13

pauperis in this case, and the Court already ordered that “Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in

14

forma pauperis in Appeal No. 17474” (ECF No. 99, p. 2).

15
16

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s miscellaneous
requests for relief are DENIED.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 13, 2020

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
2

Plaintiff has at least one other active § 1983 case.
The Court is not taking a position on the merits of any such action.
2