Ricks v. Austria et al

Filing 40

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Third 38 Motion for Explanation of Legal Terminology and Procedures, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

SCOTT K. RICKS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
A. AUSTRIA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
THIRD MOTION FOR EXPLANATION OF
LEGAL TERMINOLOGY AND
PROCEDURES
(ECF No. 38)

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

15
16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is related to Ricks v.

17

Onyeye, et al., 1:15-cv-1148-AWI-BAM, and Ricks v. Levine, et al., 1:15-cv-1150-AWI-BAM.

18

This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

19

302.

20

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for an explanation of legal

21

terminology and proceedings. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff filed his first and second motions related to

22

this issue in the Ricks v. Levine, et al., 1:15-cv-1150-AWI-BAM action.

23

Plaintiff’s contentions and relief requested in this motion are substantially identical to the

24

contentions and requests in his second motion for an explanation of legal terminology and

25

proceedings that was filed in the Levine matter. That is, Plaintiff contends that he lacks law

26

library access and writing and mailing materials, and requests information on complying with

27

discovery and print-outs of any case law, rules, and terminology referenced in any court

28

documents.
1

1

The Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s second motion for an explanation of legal

2

terminology and proceedings in the Levine matter on January 12, 2017. (Case No. 1:15-cv-

3

01150-AWI-BAM, ECF No. 45.) That order denied Plaintiff’s motion with a substantial

4

explanation of the reasons why, including that the record of this and the related cases shows that

5

Plaintiff has had access to legal reference materials, and writing and mailing materials, despite

6

his contentions.

7

Further, the Court is prohibited from giving Plaintiff legal advice, including details on

8

how to conduct discovery. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). Plaintiff is instead referred

9

to the Court’s First Informational Order (ECF No. 4) and Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF

10

No. 30) issued in this case and setting forth, in plain language intended for non-attorneys,

11

applicable rules, requirements, and deadlines for discovery in this case. Plaintiff is generally

12

referred to the Court’s January 12, 2017 order in the Levine matter more fully discussing the

13

Court’s analysis and findings of his contentions and reasons for the denial of his second motion,

14

which are equally applicable to this third motion.

15
16

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s third motion for an explanation of
legal terminology and proceedings, filed January 11, 2017 (ECF No. 38.).

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 13, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2