Asberry v. Cate et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/19/11 ORDERING that 41 Motion is GRANTED in part. The court notes, however, that plaintiff has filed several unrelated matters in this case within the last month. Plaintiff is cautioned to ex ercise restraint when considering whether to file further motions in this action. A litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it is determined that he has filed excessive motions in a pending action that unnecessarily taxes judicial resources.(Dillon, M)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:09-cv-1494 MCE KJN P
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento
(“CSP-SAC”), who proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled “Motion for Court Order to be Allowed
Access to the Law Library,” wherein he alleges that a court order is necessary before plaintiff
will be permitted to use the law library. (Dkt. No. 41.) Two matters are currently pending before
the court which require plaintiff’s access to the law library. Most immediately, defendants have
moved to dismiss a portion of plaintiff’s case (Dkt. No. 30). The extended filing deadline for
plaintiff’s response to the motion, and to the court’s order to show cause (Dkt. No. 33), is Friday,
September 23, 2011 (see order filed August 24, 2011 (Dkt. No. 39 at 2-3)). The court hereby
further extends this deadline to Friday, September 30, 2011. The second matter requiring that
plaintiff have access to the prison law library is the preparation of his reply to defendants’
anticipated opposition to plaintiff’s pending motion for preliminary injunction. (See Dkt. Nos.
32, 39.) Defendants’ response is due on or before October 5, 2011; and after service of
defendants’ response, plaintiff has fourteen days within which to prepare and file a reply.
CSP-SAC prison staff are requested to accommodate plaintiff’s need to use the
prison law library in order to meet these deadlines, with due consideration to the competing
needs of other prisoners, and other relevant institutional considerations.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 41) is granted in part. The court notes,
however, that plaintiff has filed several unrelated matters in this case within the last month.
Plaintiff is cautioned to exercise restraint when considering whether to file further motions in this
action. A litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it
is determined that he has filed excessive motions in a pending action that unnecessarily taxes
judicial resources. See e.g. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also
Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989).
DATED: September 19, 2011
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?