Hammler v. Davis et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/23/2015 GRANTING plaintiff's 35 motion for an extension of time; plaintiff has 30 days to file an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, defendant's reply due 7 days after serv ice of plaintiff's opposition. Plaintiff's 30 motion for an order compelling production of a complete copy of the documents and final decision in his RVR designated HDSP No. FB-15-03-023, is GRANTED; the Litigation Coordinators at CSP -SAC and HDSP shall obtain and provide plaintiff with these documents within fourteen (14) days. Plaintiff's additional motions 31 , 32 , 34 are DENIED. The Clerk shall (1) change plaintiff's adress of record to CSP-Sacramento; and (2) serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and on the Litigation Coordinators at CSP-SAC and HDSP. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN HAMMLER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2073 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

C. DAVIS,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file an opposition to defendant’s

17
18

motion to dismiss, filed June 22, 2015. Good cause appearing, the motion will be granted.
Plaintiff has also filed several additional matters. These filings reflect that plaintiff was

19
20

recently transferred from High Desert State Prison (HDSP) to California State Prison-Sacramento

21

(CSP-SAC); the Inmate Locator website operated by the California Department of Corrections

22

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) confirms plaintiff’s transfer to CSP-SAC.1 However, plaintiff has not

23

filed a notice of change of address, as required by Local Rules 182(f), and 183(b); failure to do so

24

may result in the dismissal of an action. In the instant case, the Clerk of Court will be directed to

25

note plaintiff’s address change.

26

1

27
28

See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/. This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are
capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency not subject to reasonable dispute.”).

1

In addition to his requested extension of time, plaintiff seeks: (1) an order compelling

2

HDSP to provide plaintiff with “the Final Copies of RVR Log # FB-15-03-023 that he may be

3

released from [the] Administrative Segregation Unit [ASU] of [CSP-]SAC (also designated a

4

“copy of the completed CDC Form 115”), ECF No. 30; (2) an order directing that plaintiff, a

5

mental health patient, be released from the ASU under the authority of Coleman v. Brown, Case

6

No. 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD P, ECF No. 31; (3) an order directing HDSP and CDCR to reverse

7

its finding of guilt on the above-cited RVR, based on alleged due process violations, ECF No. 32;

8

and (4) an order directing CSP-SAC to provide plaintiff with additional writing paper and

9

additional pages of legal cases, and permit plaintiff to photocopy more than 50 pages of his

10

prepared legal documents, ECF No. 34. Plaintiff states that he is “at this time litigating more than

11

three cases at once.” Id. at 2.

12

As plaintiff acknowledges, the court previously directed the Office of the California

13

Attorney General to investigate plaintiff’s allegations that he was, inter alia, being denied access

14

to his legal materials. See ECF No. 21 (court’s initial order); ECF No. 26 (response filed by

15

Attorney General’s office); and ECF No. 27 (court’s order denying plaintiff’s requests for

16

extraordinary relief). Plaintiff was specifically admonished to refrain from filing further

17

extraneous matters in this action. See ECF No. 27 at 4 (“Further motions seeking extraordinary

18

relief will be viewed with disfavor.”).

19

Plaintiff’s present challenges to the procedures utilized and decision reached in the above-

20

noted RVR, and his claim under Coleman, are outside the subject matter of this litigation, which

21

alleges claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference by HDSP Librarian C. Davis.

22

Nevertheless, plaintiff is entitled to a complete copy of the documents and decision in the subject

23

RVR.

24

Plaintiff’s request for sufficient legal materials to pursue all three of his active cases is

25

also not properly before this court. With the respect to the instant case only, in which plaintiff

26

must prepare an opposition to defendants’ 23-page motion to dismiss (including exhibits), the

27

undersigned finds no reasonable grounds for requesting that the CSP-SAC Law Librarian or

28

Litigation Coordinator accord plaintiff greater privileges than are routinely provided, other than
2

1

to provide due deference to plaintiff’s current 30-day deadline for filing his opposition to

2

defendant’s motion to dismiss.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, ECF No. 35, is granted.

5

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the filing date of this order in which to file an

6
7
8
9

opposition to the pending motion to dismiss.
3. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed within seven (7) days after service of plaintiff’s
opposition.
4. Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 30, for an order compelling production of a complete copy

10

of the documents and final decision in his RVR designated HDSP No. FB-15-03-023, is granted;

11

the Litigation Coordinators at CSP-SAC and HDSP shall obtain and provide plaintiff with these

12

documents within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of his order.

13

5. Plaintiff’s additional motions for extraneous relief, ECF Nos. 31, 32, 24, are denied.

14

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to: (1) change plaintiff’s address of record to California

15

State Prison –Sacramento; and (2) serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and on the Litigation

16

Coordinators at CSP-SAC and HDSP.]

17

DATED: July 23, 2015

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3