(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)

Download PDF
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?