Asberry v. Cate et al
Filing
124
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/21/13 denying 118 Motion for law library access. The discovery cut-off date of 1/03/14 is vacated and re-set to 02/20/14; the dispositive motion cut-off date of 03/28/14 is vacated and re-set for 4/25/14. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TONY ASBERRY,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:11-cv-2462 KJM KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for law library access filed
19
September 23, 2013. (ECF No. 118.) For the following reasons, this motion is denied.
20
Plaintiff, who is housed at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”), alleges that
21
he is being denied law library access. Plaintiff observes that on September 13, 2013, the court
22
issued a scheduling order setting the discovery cut-off for January 3, 2014. Plaintiff observes that
23
the September 13, 2013 scheduling order also stated that all requests for discovery were to be
24
served not later than sixty days prior to that date.
25
Attached to plaintiff’s motion as exhibits are copies of forms filed by plaintiff requesting
26
law library access. In September 2013, plaintiff submitted a request for law library access. (ECF
27
No. 118 at 6.) On September 17, 2013, Law Librarian E. Simon apparently denied the request by
28
responding that “PLU [Preferred Legal User] status is granted only for 30 days immediately prior
1
1
to the court deadline.” (Id.)
2
On September 17, 2013, plaintiff submitted a form for PLU status. (Id. at 7.) In this
3
form, plaintiff stated that his court deadline was September 13, 2013, through January 3, 2014,
4
apparently referring to the dates set for conducting discovery discussed in the September 13, 2014
5
scheduling order. (Id.) Plaintiff also wrote in the request that he needed PLU status in order to
6
conduct discovery because his deadline was January 3, 2014. (Id.) In response, Law Librarian E.
7
Simon responded that plaintiff would be eligible for PLU status on December 3, 2013. (Id. at 7.)
8
The scheduling order stated that all discovery requests were to be served no later than
9
sixty days prior to January 3, 2014. Therefore, plaintiff had until November 3, 2013, to serve
10
defendants with discovery requests. Plaintiff’s request for PLU status did not clearly inform Law
11
Librarian E. Simon of the November 3, 2013 deadline. Had plaintiff stated that his deadline was
12
November 3, 2013, the court presumes that plaintiff would have been granted PLU status 30 days
13
prior to this deadline.
14
Because of the confusion regarding the discovery cut-off and plaintiff’s related law library
15
access, the discovery cut-off and dispositive motion filing dates will be re-set. The discovery cut-
16
off date is re-set to February 20, 2014. All requests for discovery shall be served not later than 60
17
days prior to that date, i.e., on or before December 23, 2013. If plaintiff requests PLU status to
18
prepare his discovery requests, he shall inform the Law Librarian that his deadline is December
19
23, 2013. According to the documents submitted by plaintiff in support of the pending motion,
20
plaintiff will be granted PLU status 30 days prior to a court ordered deadline. Therefore,
21
plaintiff’s request for PLU status in order to prepare his discovery requests should be made on or
22
before November 23, 2013.
23
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1. Plaintiff’s motion for law library access (ECF No. 118) is denied;
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
2
1
2. The discovery cut-off date of January 3, 2014, is vacated and re-set to February 20,
2
2014; the dispositive motion cut-off date of March 28, 2014, is vacated and re-set for
3
April 25, 2014.
4
Dated: October 21, 2013
5
6
as2462.pi
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?