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
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?