Haraszewski v. Knipp

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/5/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 35 request for "ongoing PLU status" and GRANTING plaintiff's 39 motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint within 21 days. No further extensions of time will be granted. If plaintiff fails to file a timely third amended complaint, this case will be dismissed. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

H. DYMITRI HARASZEWSKI,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-2494 DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KNIPP, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges interference with his mail, deprivation of his

19

personal property, placement in administrative segregation without due process, and retaliation.

20

Plaintiff has requested a third extension of time to file a third amended complaint pursuant

21

to the court’s order of March 8, 2017. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff complains about his library access.

22

In addition, plaintiff seeks an order from the court requiring prison officials to provide him

23

“ongoing PLU status.” (ECF No. 35.)

24

Title 15, Section 3122 of the California Code of Regulations provides that inmates who

25

have “established court deadlines” may apply for Priority Legal User (“PLU”) status to the prison

26

law libraries. An inmate granted PLU status “shall receive higher priority to prison law library

27

resources than other inmates.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3122(b). “An inmate may receive PLU

28

status within 30 calendar days of his or her established court deadline unless the inmate can

1

demonstrate need for a longer period of PLU status based on extraordinary circumstances beyond

2

the inmate's control.” Id. § 3122(b)(6).

3

PLU status does not assure inmates unlimited access to the library. Inmates on PLU status

4

“may receive a minimum of 4 hours per calendar week of requested physical law library access,

5

as resources are available.” Id. § 3123(b).

6

Plaintiff simply seeks additional access to the library without explaining why he requires

7

it. Plaintiff has filed three complaints to date. Each was dismissed because plaintiff failed to

8

specifically allege what each defendant had done that caused him harm. (See Orders filed Aug.

9

26, 2015; Nov. 15, 2016; and Mar. 8, 2017 (ECF Nos. 10, 29, 33).) Also in each order, plaintiff

10

was advised of the legal standards for his claims. In the court’s order filed March 8, 2017,

11

plaintiff was informed that this is his final chance to file an amended complaint.

12

Plaintiff fails to show good cause for a court order requiring the prison to provide him

13

additional or “ongoing” PLU access. The court will grant plaintiff’s request for an extension of

14

time. However, this is the last extension of time the court will grant. If plaintiff fails to file a

15

third amended complaint within the time provided, this case will be dismissed for failure to

16

prosecute. See E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R Civ. P. 41(b).

17

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff’s request for “ongoing PLU status” (ECF No. 35) is denied; and

19

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 39) is granted. Plaintiff shall file

20

his third amended complaint within twenty-one days of the date of this order. No

21

further extensions of time will be granted. If plaintiff fails to file a timely third

22

amended complaint, this case will be dismissed.

23

DATED: July 5, 2017

24
25
/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/hara2494.36sec.amc

2