Dillingham v. Garcia et al

Filing 38

ORDER on Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Administrative Relief; ORDER Directing Clerk to Send Plaintiff Copy of Docket Sheet, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/24/19. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00579-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

v.
(ECF NO. 28)
F. GARCIA,
Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
SEND PLAINTIFF COPY OF DOCKET
SHEET

15
16
17
18

Jerry Dillingham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for administrative relief. (ECF No. 28). In

19

the motion, Plaintiff asks for several things. Plaintiff asks that he be provided with a copy of

20

the docket sheet. Plaintiff also asks for Chief Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to be assigned to the

21

new case he intends to file. Finally, Plaintiff asks for a Court order directing Defendant’s

22

counsel to provide Plaintiff with copies of all cases cited in Defendant’s counsel’s filings.

23

Alternatively, Plaintiff asks for a court order directing staff at Kern Valley State Prison to allow

24

Plaintiff to make copies of three cases per week.

25

Defendant opposes the motion. (ECF No. 34). Defendant argues that the Court does

26

not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s request regarding photo copying because the request

27

“stem[s] from his attempt to prosecute another action against another party.” (Id. at 2).

28

Additionally, Warden Pfeiffer (the Warden of Kern Valley State Prison) is not a party to this
1

1

case, and the requested order is not necessary to aid in the Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction or

2

for the Court to render judgment in this case.

3
4
5

The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the docket sheet,
and will direct the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy.
As to Plaintiff’s request for Chief Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to be assigned to the new

6

case that Plaintiff intends to file, it will be denied without prejudice. New cases are generally

7

assigned to a random judge. If the new cases is sufficiently related to this case, after the new

8

case is filed, Plaintiff may file a motion in this case asking for the cases to be related. If

9

Plaintiff chooses to file such a motion, Plaintiff should explain how the cases are related.

10

As to Plaintiff’s request for copies of relevant cases, the Court will grant the request in

11

part. Plaintiff states that because he is unable to read and write, he needs copies so that he can

12

show the relevant legal authority to the inmates helping him prosecute this case. The inmates

13

helping Plaintiff are not priority library users, and are not allowed to go to the library with

14

Plaintiff. Additionally, a few of the inmates assisting Plaintiff are computer illiterate.

15

While it is not the duty of defense counsel to make copies for Plaintiff, it is also true

16

that Plaintiff requires adequate notice of the relevant law to oppose Defendant’s motions.

17

Providing limited copies of relevant cases does not pose an undue hardship on Defendant and

18

will help ensure an equitable and just process under the exceptional circumstances here.

19

Accordingly, the Court will order Defendants to provide Plaintiff with any case or

20

statute that provides the central rule of law that applies in the motion. Defendants need not

21

include every case cited. It is the Court’s expectation that this will include at least one case or

22

statute and no more than three for any given motion.

23

Given this accommodation among the parties, the Court will not make a blanket order

24

requiring Defendant (or staff at Kern Valley State Prison) to make copies of cases for Plaintiff.

25

If Plaintiff needs copies of cases in the future, he may file another motion, which the Court will

26

take under consideration at that time.

27
28

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the docket sheet is granted. The Clerk of Court
2

1

is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet.
2. Plaintiff’s request for Chief Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to be assigned to the new

2
3

case that Plaintiff intends to file is denied, without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff’s request for copies of relevant cases is granted in part, and denied in

4
5

part without prejudice. Defense counsel shall send Plaintiff the leading cases or

6

statutes setting forth the central law relied upon in all motions filed by

7

Defendant. This order is limited to no more than three statutes and/or cases per

8

motion.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 24, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3