United States District Court, E.D. California
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently
pending before the court are plaintiff's requests for
additional discovery (ECF Nos. 123, 126, 127), request for
phone usage and transfer to another institution (ECF No.
124), a request for a large-print copy of the Local Rules
(ECF Nos. 126, 129), and a motion for a ninety-day extension
of time to respond to defendants' motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 128).
plaintiff's requests for additional discovery, plaintiff
has been previously advised that discovery is closed and will
not be re-opened. ECF Nos. 116, 122. Per this court's
order, defendants have filed a notice that plaintiff has been
served with a copy of the CDC 7371 form dated November 15,
2010, which was located in his central file. ECF No. 125. The
other documents plaintiff states that he needs appear to be
the type of documents that would be maintained in his central
file, which plaintiff can access through an Olsen review.
Plaintiff does not require leave of the court to request an
Olsen review, nor should defendants be burdened with
providing plaintiff with documents that should have been
requested during discovery and to which he already has
access. As the court has previously advised, requests for
discovery should have been served before the close of the
discovery period. The current requests for discovery, ECF
Nos. 123, 126, 127, will be denied and any further requests
for discovery will be disregarded.
has also requested phone usage and an order to be transferred
to California Medical Facility in Vacaville. ECF No. 124. The
court does not have authority to order the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to
provide plaintiff with unlimited phone usage or transfer him
to another facility. Therefore, these requests will be
denied. If plaintiff seeks phone access, he must follow
whatever procedures are in place at the institution where he
is housed for using the phone.
filed an initial request for a copy of the Local Rules, which
was granted when the Clerk of the Court sent him a copy of
the Local Rules applicable to prisoner cases. ECF Nos. 126;
Docket entry for ECF No. 126. He now requests a large-print
copy of the Local Rules. ECF No. 129. The court does not
maintain large-print copies of the Local Rules and plaintiff
has stated that he is receiving assistance reading documents.
Accordingly, the request for a large-print copy of the rules
has moved for another ninety-day extension of time to file an
opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment.
ECF No. 128. Plaintiff states that the incorrect glasses were
delivered and the eye doctor re-ordered the correct
prescription glasses on April 12, 2017. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff states that it will take another ninety days to
receive his re-ordered prescription eye glasses. Id.
Plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for
summary judgment is currently due by May 24, 2017. ECF No.
118. The original deadline was March 9, 2017. See
plaintiff asserts that he is unable to read without his new
glasses, none of his requests for extension have advised the
court whether he still has access to his old glasses while he
waits for the new prescription to arrive. ECF Nos. 113,
117, 128. Plaintiff also fails to inform the court what he
has been doing to try to meet his current deadline.
Plaintiff's numerous filings since his new glasses were
ordered clearly show that he is still able to write (ECF Nos.
106, 108, 112, 113, 115, 117, 119-121, 123, 124, 126-129),
and one of his recent filings states that he has assistance
in reading communications (ECF No. 129). Although it appears
that completing an opposition to defendants' motion for
summary judgment without his new glasses may take more time,
it does not appear to be impossible and plaintiff has not
given any indication that he has been trying to work on his
opposition while he waits for his glasses. Accordingly,
plaintiff's motion for a second ninety-day extension of
time will be denied without prejudice. If plaintiff wants to
renew his motion for additional time, he must tell the court
whether he has access to his old glasses and, if he does, why
they are not sufficient. He must also explain what he has
been doing to complete his opposition in the time he has
already been granted.
plaintiff has requested a court order allowing his family to
order him “Dial Vision” glasses which apparently
let the wearer adjust the prescription at will. ECF No. 128.
The court will not order the CDCR to allow what it assumes
are unapproved prescription eye glasses into the prison and
therefore this request will be denied. Denial of this request
does not prevent plaintiff's family from utilizing any
already existing procedures that may be available for
purchasing plaintiff approved glasses.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's requests for additional discovery (ECF Nos.
123, 126, 127) are denied;
Plaintiff's request for phone usage and transfer to
another facility (ECF No. 124) is denied;
Plaintiff's request for a large-print copy of the Local
Rules (ECF No. 129) is denied.
Plaintiff's motion for a ninety-day extension of time
(ECF No. 128) is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff's request for an order allowing his family to
purchase eye glasses for him (ECF No. ...