The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
(Docs. 5, 6, 10, 13 14, 19)
Plaintiff Bernard C. Hughes ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are six motions from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has consented to jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Doc. #4.)
A. Plaintiff's January 13, 2010 Motion Request to Amend the First Informational Order
On January 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Ammend[sic] First Informational Order/Declaration of Petitioner." (Doc. #5.) Plaintiff requests "relief" from the Court's First Informational Order, which informed Plaintiff that documents submitted to the Court must be single-sided. Plaintiff complains that he is forced to write on "the backside of printed materials from criminal trial[sic]" and cannot comply with the Court's order. Plaintiff is advised that his filings will be accepted so long as he is not writing on both sides and that it is clear which side of the paper Plaintiff is using and which side should be ignored by the Court.
Plaintiff has also informed the Court that he is "unable to serve your order re consent or request for reassignment. Due to no copy services," and that Plaintiff is "not allowed access to Federal Rules Civil Procedure or Local Rules." However, Plaintiff has not requested any type of specific relief from the Court. Thus, there appears to be no issue for the Court to rule upon, other than Plaintiff's request that the Court accept his filings written on the backside of printed materials from Plaintiff's criminal trial. Plaintiff's motion to "amend" the First Informational Order will be denied. However, as explained above, Plaintiff's may file documents using the backside of his trial papers so long as Plaintiff makes it clear which side of the paper is relevant to this action.
B. Plaintiff's January 13, 2010 Request for Clarification
Plaintiff has filed a second motion requesting clarification of the Court's First Informational Order. (Doc. #6.) Plaintiff asks the Court whether it is appropriate to cite to both the Americans with Disabilities Act ("A.D.A.") and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the same action. Plaintiff appears to have interpreted the Court's First Informational Order as prohibiting Plaintiff from citing both statutes in the same action. Plaintiff is advised that he may raise claims under both statutes in a single action if his claims are sufficiently related. However, if the claims are not related and are against different Defendants, Plaintiff may not raise them in the same lawsuit.
Plaintiff is further advised that it is his responsibility to conduct the necessary legal research to pursue this action, and that it is not appropriate for the Court to provide him with legal advice.
C. Plaintiff's February 2, 2010 Motion for Reconsideration
On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the Court's January 22, 2010 order denying Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. (Doc. #13.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(j), Plaintiff must set forth the material facts and circumstances justifying reconsideration, including "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." Plaintiff's motion does not contain a persuasive demonstration of any grounds that would justify reconsideration. Thus, Plaintiff's request for reconsideration will be denied.
D. Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order
On January 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. (Doc. #10.) Plaintiff complains that he is being denied access to the law library and to legal materials. Plaintiff makes various complaints about the conditions in the jail where he is being housed. Plaintiff requests an order "requiring Defendants to arrange book study, and legal materials . . . private psychological consultations face to face and private by a psychiatrist without eavsdropping[sic] ...