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)

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