Rodriguez v. Tilton, et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/21/11 ORDERING that 62 Motion to Stay is DENIED; Parties may now conduct discovery until 7/15/11. Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 10/10/11.(Dillon, M)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,
No. CIV S-08-1028 GEB GGH P
JAMES TILTON, et al.,
Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff
seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 17, 2011, the court issued a discovery and
scheduling order that the parties may conduct discovery until July 1, 2011. On June 13, 2011,
plaintiff filed a motion to stay discovery for 90 days (Doc. 62) and a separate letter (Doc. 60)
regarding difficulties in accessing the law library and his legal materials. The court notes that
plaintiff’s handwriting is at times illegible and it is difficult to fully comprehend what he is
stating and requesting. It appears plaintiff seeks a stay of discovery as he needs more time to
acquire and make copies of defendants’ discovery requests.
In the motion for a stay, plaintiff states he is not being provided enough law
library time, not enough time to view his legal files and is only being allowed to copy 100 pages
a week. Plaintiff also wishes to check out the “prisoner litigation manual” from the library, but
apparently can only view it while in the actual library and not take it back to his cell.1 Plaintiff’s
separate letter also describes difficulties with access to the law library and viewing his legal
While plaintiff identifies general difficulties in trying to obtain his legal materials
or have additional law library access, he fails to point to any specific reasons he needs additional
access. Plaintiff states that he is responding to discovery requests, but fails to demonstrate how
his limited access is impeding him. While it clearly is inconvenient only having limited library
access and only being able to review a book in the library, the prison must balance the needs of
all the prisoners. The “prisoner litigation manual” would seem to be a popular book that would
want to be viewed by multiple prisoners and keeping it in the library for all to use seems a wise
decision. With regard to plaintiff’s other allegations, he has failed to demonstrate specific
reasons why he needs additional access.
Plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery is denied, but discovery will be extended
approximately 14 days as will the deadline for all other motions.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of discovery (Doc. 62) is denied:
2. Parties may now conduct discovery until July 15, 2011. Any motions
necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All pretrial motions, except motions to
compel discovery, shall be filed on or before October 10, 2011.
DATED: June 21, 2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH: AB - rodr1028.ord3
Plaintiff states that the library guard is causing all of these problems, though the guard in
question does not appear to be a defendant in this case. Based on plaintiff’s handwriting, it is not
clear the exact name of the guard.
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?