THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 29, 2009
ANDREW JOSEPH SEDILLO, PLAINTIFF,
LINDA MAKELA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Michael Seabright United States District Judge
ORDER DEEMING MOOT PLAINTIFF'S "NOTICE OF CLARIFICATION ON THE LAW PERTAINING TO ACCESS TO A LAW LIBRARY"
On April 7, 2008, pro se prisoner Plaintiff Andrew Joseph Sedillo ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint alleging claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 9, 2009, the court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend. On March 3, 2009, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint on the basis that his prison is on mandatory lock-down for at least 60 days, depriving him access to the law library. On March 6, 2009, the court rejected this contention as meritless, but nonetheless granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days to file an amended complaint.
On April 10, 2009, Plaintiff timely filed his Amended Complaint, as well as a "Notice of Clarification on the Law Pertaining to Access to a Law Library," stating that Plaintiff "needs more information from the court as to what law applies here when an inmate needs access to a law library or the proper tools for research." Because Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff received access to the necessary materials and the court does not issue advisory opinions. The court therefore DEEMS MOOT Plaintiff's "Notice of Clarification on the Law Pertaining to Access to a Law Library."
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.