IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 15, 2009
MARTY GLEN ALLEN, PLAINTIFF,
J. WALKER, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn1 Pending before the court are two motions plaintiff has entitled "Motion to Amend the Complaint" (Doc. 18) and "Motion to Amend the Petition" (Doc. 17), both filed on January 5, 2009. On the same date, plaintiff also filed an amended complaint (Doc. 19).
Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed on October 7, 2008, but plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff requested additional time to file his amended complaint, which was granted on December 2, 2008. Plaintiff has complied with that court order by filing his amended complaint on January 5, 2009.*fn2
As plaintiff was proceeding under court order to file an amended complaint, no request for leave of court to do so was necessary. His motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint will be denied as unnecessary. His amended complaint, which the court is required to screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), will be addressed separately.
In addition to his request for leave to file his amended compliant, plaintiff also appears to be requesting the court issue an order granting him "Preferred Legal User" status. Plaintiff, however, does not allege that he is under a present obligation to submit documents within a time certain and thus has not demonstrated that his right of access to the courts is being impaired. He does refer to his other case he claims is pending in the Fresno Division of this court, case number 1:07-CV-0175-LJO-DLB. However, the docket in that case reflects that case is closed and on appeal. Plaintiff is not under any current deadline in this case, having already submitted his amended complaint to the court, and the court will not set a deadline merely for the purpose of insuring the plaintiff additional library time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions to file an amended complaint (Docs. 17 & 18) are denied as unnecessary; and
2. Plaintiff's request for a court-ordered deadline, or an order granting him "Preferred Legal User" status, is denied.