IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 25, 2010
ANDREW RICK LOPEZ, PLAINTIFF,
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order, filed on October 4, 2010 (docket # 19), this court found plaintiff's claims as to fifteen defendants (one in an official capacity only) colorable, and, in findings and recommendations, also filed on October 4, 2010 (docket # 20), recommended dismissal of nine other defendants with an additional defendant so recommended in an individual capacity only. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion, filed on October 18, 2010 (docket # 22), for an order to compel defendant Cate to copy all of plaintiff's documents (presumably related to this case) and that all future orders provide him with deadline extensions as he is a SHU (security housing unit) prisoner, confined to his cell and placed in restraints and escorted for all movement. Motion, pp. 1. He also claims his law library access is limited because of the length of time (seven days) it takes the law library staff to process an inmate's application to access the library. Id. Plaintiff also asserts that law library staff are prohibited by, inter alia, § 101120.15 of the CDCR*fn1 DOM,*fn2 of which plaintiff includes an unauthenticated copy of an excerpt, from photocopying legal documents exceeding 100 pages in length. Id. at 1, 4. The excerpt indicates, in part, that legal documents to be duplicated for inmates should not exceed 50 pages; that for documents exceeding 50 pages, the inmate's request will be granted when a reasonable written request is provided with the request; and staff will not be required to copy "a legal document exceeding 100 pages in length in the absence of a court order directing the duplication." Id. at 4.
Plaintiff points out that the court directed plaintiff to file 15 copies of his 40-page amended complaint, which plaintiff avers is well over the 100-page limit. Motion, p. 2. (The court notes, however, that it is unclear whether the DOM section cited is intended to limit the number of copies of a single document less than 50 pages). In a footnote, plaintiff asserts that on October 13, 2010, unnamed prison officials made three copies of the amended complaint and then instructed him to "'tell the court to make the other copies.'" Id. & footnote 1. Plaintiff did not identify the officials who allegedly told him this. The court's order (see order filed on October 10, 2010 (docket # 19)) directing plaintiff to provide, inter alia, a total of 16 copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed on July 29, 2010 (docket # 17) (15 the copy the court clerk provided plaintiff) within thirty days should suffice to satisfy prison officials as to plaintiff's need for the copies. At a minimum plaintiff must provide specific information as to when and by whom he is being limited in the amount of copies he needs for the court to consider any additional order. However, the court will grant plaintiff an additional twenty-eight days to provide the requisite copies.
As to plaintiff's request that the court order greater library access for him and automatically extend all deadlines as to him, this will be denied. Plaintiff may seek library access and extensions of time when appropriate but no broadsweeping orders will issue.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's request, filed on October 18, 2010 (docket # 22), construed as a request for an extension of time to submit the documents for service of his amended complaint, is granted and plaintiff has until December 1, 2010 to submit the requisite documents for the court to order service of the summons and amended complaint.