Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Samuel anderson v. Matthew Tate

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 2, 2012

SAMUEL ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW TATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for a court order granting him permission to obtain declarations by other prisoners. Other than a declaration describing plaintiff's attempts to serve this motion, the July 23, 2012 motion is identical to a motion filed by plaintiff on July 11, 2012. On July 20, 2012, the undersigned denied plaintiff's July 11, 2012 motion for a court order granting him permission to obtain declarations by other prisoners. Accordingly, plaintiff's July 23, 2012 motion for a court order granting him permission to obtain declarations by other prisoners is denied as duplicative.

On July 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time. On July 11, 2012, plaintiff filed an identical motion which the undersigned granted on July 20, 2012. Accordingly, plaintiff's July 23, 2012 is denied as duplicative.

On July 27, 2012 plaintiff filed a letter with the court, docketed as a "motion," alleging inadequate law library access. Plaintiff alleges that on July 19, 2012 he submitted a "request for interview to the D yard law library." Plaintiff alleges that he received the form back with no reply. Plaintiff requests that the court order prison officials to grant him law library access.

All requests for court orders must be made by motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Plaintiff's July 27, 2012 request for law library access is disregarded as it is not made by motion. In addition, plaintiff has cited only one occasion where his request for law library access was allegedly not properly processed. Plaintiff also does not identify any prison officials who were involved in the alleged mishandling of his request. For these reasons, plaintiff's request for law library access is not adequately supported.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's July 23, 2012 motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 71) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion for a court order granting him permission to obtain declarations (Dkt. No. 72) is denied;

3. Plaintiff's July 27, 2012 letter, docketed as a motion (Dkt. No. 73), is disregarded.

20120802

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.