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)

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