(PC) Wolinski v. Abdulgader et al
Filing
73
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 01/28/2025 DENYING Plaintiff's 62 Motion for a court order directed to the CMF law librarian and DENYING Plaintiff's 68 Motion for Reconsideration. (Deputy Clerk KS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:21-cv-2078-DJC-CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
ABDULBASET ABDULGADER, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights
19
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directed to the CMF law
20
librarian (ECF No. 62) and plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration directed to the undersigned
21
magistrate judge (ECF No. 68) are before the court.
22
In plaintiff’s motion for a court order directed to the law librarian, plaintiff states the CMF
23
law librarian refused to activate for plaintiff the “Canvas Program” which allows vision impaired
24
inmates to print documents, and which would allow plaintiff to print his files from the ADA
25
computer. (ECF No. 62 at 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges a policy allowing use of the Canvas Program
26
only by vision impaired inmates discriminates against all other groups of ADA inmates such as
27
plaintiff. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting he has been denied access to the law
28
library or been denied the ability to print his documents, and there is no suggestion that his right
1
of access to the courts is being impaired. Moreover, plaintiff’s address of record indicates he is
2
currently in custody at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Thus, the motion is moot. For all these
3
reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a court order directed to the CMF law librarian will be denied.
4
On September 11, 2024, after many other extensions of time were granted, the
5
undersigned granted plaintiff a final 21-day extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery
6
requests and stated no further extensions of time would be granted. (ECF No. 67.) On October 7,
7
2024, plaintiff filed a motion addressed to the undersigned requesting reconsideration of that
8
order. (ECF No. 69.) In the motion, plaintiff also requests the court to vacate the deadline for
9
plaintiff to complete discovery and to vacate the dispositive motion deadline until after the court
10
rules on motions plaintiff filed. The court notes the dispositive motion deadline has since been
11
vacated. (See ECF No. 67 at 3.) Following this order, no pending motions filed by plaintiff
12
remain unresolved. 1 Plaintiff shows no basis for the court to vacate or modify the September 11,
13
2024, order. Plaintiff continues to claim he was prevented from responding to defendants’
14
discovery requests, but he makes no indication he would provide responses if given a further
15
extension of time for that purpose. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration addressed to the
16
undersigned will also be denied.
17
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
18
1. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directed to the CMF law librarian (ECF No. 62) is
DENIED.
19
2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 68) is DENIED.
20
21
Dated: January 28, 2025
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
8, woli2078.lib.mfr
26
1
27
28
However, defendants’ motion for sanctions and for dismissal of the case based on the alleged
refusal of plaintiff to comply with the court’s discovery orders is fully briefed and pending. (See
ECF Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72.) The court will consider the defendants’ pending motion for sanctions in
due course.
2
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?