Brown v. Gore et al

Filing 47

ORDER Denying 46 Plaintiff's Motion For Court Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 2/21/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MARK BROWN, II,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Civil No.

12-CV-1938-GPC (BGS)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER

v.
DEPUTY #1, Deputy Sheriff; et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Robert Mark Brown, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings this civil suit against various Deputy Sheriff defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging his
civil rights were violated while housed at George Bailey Detention Facility. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff is now
housed at San Diego Central Jail. (Doc. No. 40.) On February 14, 2013, nunc pro tunc to February 7, 2013,
Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to order the San Diego County Jail to give him the same pro
per privileges that he would have if his case was a criminal matter. (Doc. No. 46.) The Court notes that
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, or in propria persona, as he does not have an attorney appearing
on his behalf. Plaintiff states that he is only able to use one legal research request per month and cannot get
copies without an order from the Court. (Doc. No. 46.) The Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as a request
for a protective order for legal research access and copies.
In seeking a protective order against a non-party to this action, Plaintiff must make a good cause
showing that without it he will be significantly impeded from litigating this action. See Pope v. Garcia,
2012 WL 1552431 * 3 (E.D.Cal., April 30, 2012). “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection
1

12cv1938-GPC

1

bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips

2

ex re. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court denies

3

Plaintiff’s motion for protective order for failing to show good cause. The Court previously denied two

4

similar requests from Plaintiff, where he sought a protective order for correctional officers to treat his legal

5

materials as if he were litigating a criminal matter and requested a court order for law library access and

6

supplies. (Doc. Nos. 18 & 34 at 2-3.) Plaintiff is already proceeding pro se in this action and has thus far

7

been able to meet court deadlines, file numerous motions with the Court, notify the Court of a change of

8

address, and submit the current request. It is unclear from Plaintiff’s current request what documents he

9

has been unable to copy, if he has attempted to use the institution’s procedures for obtaining copies, and

10

how his access to the legal research associates has been inadequate. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that

11

without a protective order he would be significantly impeded from litigating this action at this time.

12

Additionally, as the Court previously directed, if Plaintiff needs additional time in order to obtain copies

13

or research in the future, he is advised to file a motion for an extension of time before the relevant

14

submission is due.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
Dated: February 21, 2013
17
18

BERNARD G. SKOMAL
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

12cv1938-GPC