Manning, et al., v. CDCR, et al.,
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/21/15 ordering plaintiff's motion to stay the defendants' motions for summary judgment 253 is denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment 168 , 171 are hereby vacated. D efendants shall re-file and re-serve their motions for summary judgment, without additions or amendments, within 7 days of the filing of this order. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from service to file a response to each motion. Defendants may reply within 14 days of service of the response. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHERMAN D. MANNING,
No. 2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to stay ruling on defendants’
motions for summary judgment until he is released from prison in February 2016 (ECF No. 253)
and what appears to be a sur-reply to the defendants’ summary judgment motions (ECF No. 254).
Plaintiff’s motion to stay is based upon his inability to access the law library and his legal
property (ECF No. 253 at 1-4) and his sur-reply reiterates this point (ECF No. 254 at 1). As this
court previously stated, the constitutional right of access to the courts is only a right to bring
petitions or complaints to the federal court and not a right to discover such claims or even to
litigate them effectively once filed with a court. ECF No. 252 at 5-4 (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518
U.S. 343, 354 (1996); Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995)). Moreover, despite
plaintiff’s limited access, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he still maintains the ability to file
multiple motions, notices, and other miscellaneous documents with the court. Plaintiff’s alleged
inability to litigate effectively does not constitute a basis to stay or deny defendants motions for
summary judgment, though the court will be mindful of plaintiff’s restricted access when
considering the summary-judgment motions.
However, while it is clear from plaintiff’s recent filings that he has access to incoming
legal mail (ECF Nos. 245, 253, 254), he now specifically alleges that he does not currently have
access to the defendants’ summary-judgment motions (ECF No. 253 at 4), which indicates that he
did not have access to them while drafting his response. Given that plaintiff admittedly does not
have access to his legal property (ECF No. 238 at 3, 5), this allegation is credible. Yet despite
plaintiff’s current inability to access his legal property while he is in a mental health crisis bed, it
is clear that he is permitted access to his incoming legal mail. Therefore, the court will deny
plaintiff’s motion to stay and instead vacate the motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 168,
171) and direct the defendants to re-file and re-serve their summary-judgment motions. This shall
ensure plaintiff has the benefit of having copies of the motions while drafting his responses. In
light of plaintiff’s limited access to his legal property, the court will consider the record before it
in its entirety when considering plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ re-noticed motions for
summary judgment, including any previously submitted exhibits.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF No.
253) is denied.
2. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 168, 171) are hereby vacated.
3. Defendants shall re-file and re-serve their motions for summary judgment, without
additions or amendments, within seven days of the filing of this order.
4. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from service to file a response to each motion.
Defendants may reply within fourteen days of service of the response.
DATED: May 21, 2015
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?