Asberry v. Cate et al

Filing 43

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TONY ASBERRY, Plaintiff, 11 12 No. 2:09-cv-1494 MCE KJN P vs. 13 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ORDER / Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento 17 (“CSP-SAC”), who proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled “Motion for Court Order to be Allowed 19 Access to the Law Library,” wherein he alleges that a court order is necessary before plaintiff 20 will be permitted to use the law library. (Dkt. No. 41.) Two matters are currently pending before 21 the court which require plaintiff’s access to the law library. Most immediately, defendants have 22 moved to dismiss a portion of plaintiff’s case (Dkt. No. 30). The extended filing deadline for 23 plaintiff’s response to the motion, and to the court’s order to show cause (Dkt. No. 33), is Friday, 24 September 23, 2011 (see order filed August 24, 2011 (Dkt. No. 39 at 2-3)). The court hereby 25 further extends this deadline to Friday, September 30, 2011. The second matter requiring that 26 plaintiff have access to the prison law library is the preparation of his reply to defendants’ 1 1 anticipated opposition to plaintiff’s pending motion for preliminary injunction. (See Dkt. Nos. 2 32, 39.) Defendants’ response is due on or before October 5, 2011; and after service of 3 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 4 5 prison law library in order to meet these deadlines, with due consideration to the competing 6 needs of other prisoners, and other relevant institutional considerations. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 41) is granted in part. The court notes, 7 8 however, that plaintiff has filed several unrelated matters in this case within the last month. 9 Plaintiff is cautioned to exercise restraint when considering whether to file further motions in this 10 action. A litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it 11 is determined that he has filed excessive motions in a pending action that unnecessarily taxes 12 judicial resources. See e.g. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 13 Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). 14 DATED: September 19, 2011 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 asbe1494.80.grnt 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?