Ricks v. Levine, et al.

Filing 45

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Second 44 Motion for Explanation of Legal Terminology and Proceedings, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/12/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
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. G. LEVINE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMINOLOGY AND PROCEEDINGS (ECF No. 44) 15 Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is related to Ricks v. 18 Austria, et al., 1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM, and Ricks v. Onyeye, et al., 1:15-cv-1148-AWI- 19 BAM. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for explanation of legal 21 22 terminology and proceedings. (ECF No. 44). Plaintiff notes that in a previous motion requesting 23 the appointment for counsel, he contended that he lacked law library access and writing and 24 mailing materials. Plaintiff further states that he continues to lack such access. Plaintiff also 25 states he does not know what the terms “discovery” or “discovery procedures” mean, and does 26 not know how to comply with discovery. Plaintiff further requests print-outs of any case law, 27 rules, and terminology referenced in any court documents. 28 /// 1 1 To Plaintiff request for information regarding discovery, the Court cannot give Plaintiff 2 legal advice, which includes providing Plaintiff with further details on how to conduct discovery. 3 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or 4 paralegal to pro se litigants. . . . Requiring district courts to advise a pro se litigant in such a 5 manner would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.”) 6 The Court has previously issued to Plaintiff a First Informational Order, on July 24, 2015 7 (ECF No. 4), and an Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order, on December 15, 2016 (ECF 8 No. 43). These orders contain the information provided to Plaintiff regarding applicable rules 9 and requirements in this case, including on discovery. The Court notes that these orders are 10 written in plain language intended for non-attorneys, and include both citations to and relevant 11 information from applicable rules. Litigating this case in compliance with the relevant rules and 12 the Court’s orders is solely the Plaintiff’s responsibility. 13 Regarding Plaintiff’s contentions of a lack of law library access and writing and mailing 14 materials, as the Court has previously noted in this action and in the other related cases, Plaintiff 15 has submitted many lengthy, handwritten filings citing various legal authorities. This includes 16 the subject motion, and other filings made while Plaintiff was housed at his current institution. It 17 appears, therefore, that Plaintiff has had some access to legal reference materials, and writing 18 and mailing materials, despite his contentions. 19 The Court generally does not send litigants free hard copies of rules or case law, and any 20 deviation from that standard practice represents an exception which must be justified. Copies of 21 the rules cited in the Court’s orders should be available to Plaintiff from the law library at his 22 institution. His request to have print-outs provided to him will be denied. 23 Finally, in an abundance of caution and based on Plaintiff’s contentions of the lack of law 24 library access at this time, the Court advises Plaintiff that he may request the assistance of the 25 Litigation Coordinator at Plaintiff’s institution in ensuring that Plaintiff is afforded adequate 26 opportunities to access the law library. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) 27 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). 28 2 1 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for 2 explanation of legal terminology and proceeding, filed January 11, 2017 (ECF No. 44), is 3 DENIED. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara January 12, 2017 7 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?