Young v. Smalls et al

Filing 145

ORDER (1) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 139 ; (2) Setting briefing schedule on Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Summary Judgment 141 ; (3) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for an Order for access to law library 142 ; and (4 ) Granting Plaintiff's request for copies of chambers 142 . Plaintiff shall file a memorandum of points and authorities and all documents supporting his motion for summary judgment on or before January 13, 2012. Defendants shall file an opposit ion to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion on or before January 27, 2012. Plaintiff shall file a reply brief on or before February 10, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 12/19/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(copies of the "Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures of Judge Dana M. Sabraw" and for "Judge Adler's Chambers Rules" mailed to Plaintiff)(lao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HOWARD YOUNG, CDCR #F-44590,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

LARRY SMALLS, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 09-CV-2545-DMS (JMA)
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[Doc. No. 139]; (2) SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc.
No. 141]; (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR
ACCESS TO LAW LIBRARY [Doc. No.
142]; AND (4) GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COPIES
OF CHAMBERS RULES [Doc. No.
142]

19
Presently before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff Howard

20
21

Young: a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 139), a renewed motion for summary

22

judgment (Doc. No. 141), and a motion for an order for access to an adequate law

23

library and for copies of chambers rules (Doc. No. 144).

24

I.

25

Motion for Reconsideration
On November 18, 2011 nunc pro tunc November 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion

26

for reconsideration of the Court’s October 27, 2011 Order denying his motions for

27

appointment of counsel and for expert witnesses.

28

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

09cv2545

1

reconsideration. Rule 60(b), to which Plaintiff cites, allows a party to seek relief from “a

2

final judgment, order, or proceeding” due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

3

excusable neglect,” “newly discovered evidence,” “fraud,” or because “the judgment is

4

void,” “the judgment has been satisfied,” or for “any other reason that justifies relief.”

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), however, does expressly permit motions

6

for reconsideration. Under Rule 7.1(i)(1), a party applying for reconsideration must set

7

forth “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not

8

exist, or were not shown” upon the prior application. Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1).
Here, Plaintiff has shown no “newly discovered evidence” nor has he demon-

9
10

strated that any “new or different facts or circumstances” warrant reconsideration of the

11

Court’s October 27, 2011 Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

12

DENIED.1

13

II.

Motion for Summary Judgment

14

On September 27, 2011 nunc pro tunc September 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

15

motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 126. During a Case Management Conference

16

held on November 1, 2011, Plaintiff advised the Court that he wished to withdraw the

17

motion and would file a notice of withdrawal of the motion without prejudice. See Nov.

18

1, 2011 Order at 6 [Doc. No. 136]. Instead of filing a notice of withdrawal of the motion,

19

however, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for summary judgment as well as a notice of

20

intent to file points and authorities in support of his motion. Doc. Nos. 141, 142.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The Court hereby issues the following briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s renewed
motion for summary judgment:
1.

Plaintiff shall file a memorandum of points and authorities and all docu-

ments supporting his motion for summary judgment on or before January 13, 2012.
2.

Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion

on or before January 27, 2012.
3.

Plaintiff shall file a reply brief on or before February 10, 2012. The motion

28
1

The Court clarifies for the record that its denial of Plaintiff’s motion to appoint expert
witnesses (see Doc. No. 134) was without prejudice.
09cv2545
2

1

will be deemed submitted as of that date.

2

III.

Motion for an Order for Adequate Access to an Adequate Law Library and
for Copies of Chambers Rules

3
4

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order directing the California Depart-

5

ment of Corrections and Rehabilitation to “provide Plaintiff with adequate access to an

6

adequate law library of at least 3-4 hours per week, of which the law library will include

7

access to updated, relevant case law citations, the ability to obtain reasonable copies,

8

and a paging system.” Pl.’s Mot., Doc. No. 144, at 2. The Court previously denied

9

Plaintiff’s request for an order granting law library access on November 1, 2010. See

10
11

Doc. No. 39.
Prison officials are required to “assist inmates in the preparation and filing of

12

meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate

13

assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828

14

(1977). The right of access to the courts, however, only requires that prisoners have

15

the capability of bringing challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement. Lewis

16

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356-57 (1996). The right of access to the courts is only a right

17

to present claims to the court, and not a right to discover claims or to litigate them

18

effectively once filed. Id. at 354.

19

Here, as before, Plaintiff does not provide any indication that his alleged limited

20

access to the law library has had any actual impact on his ability to adequately access

21

the court or to comply with court deadlines. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an order

22

granting “adequate access to an adequate law library” access is DENIED. Plaintiff’s

23

request for copies of the “Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures of Judge Dana M. Sabraw”

24

and for “Judge Adler’s Chambers Rules,” is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall mail

25

copies of these documents to Plaintiff.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 19, 2011

28
Jan M. Adler
U.S. Magistrate Judge
3

09cv2545