(PC) Contreraz v. Stockbridge et al, No. 1:2006cv01817 - Document 51 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Partially Granting Motion 50 , and Requesting Litigation Office Investigate and then Facilitate Plaintiff's Access to Legal Material and Resources, Limited to Extent Necessary to Complete and File Objections to Pending Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Directing Clerk's Office to Serve Order on Litigation Office, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/2/2010. Objections to F&R Deadline:11/8/2010. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Contreraz v. Stockbridge et al Doc. 51 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 MICHAEL CONTRERAZ, CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01817-LJO-SMS PC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING MOTION, AND REQUESTING LITIGATION OFFICE INVESTIGATE AND THEN FACILITATE PLAINTIFF’S ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIAL AND RESOURCES, LIMITED TO EXTENT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE AND FILE OBJECTIONS TO PENDING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 v. 7 J. STOCKBRIDGE, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 (Doc. 50) 11 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO SERVE ORDER ON LITIGATION OFFICE 12 SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Michael Contreraz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 14, 2006. On February 4, 17 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants Rodriguez and Cota’s motion to dismiss 18 for failure to exhaust be granted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). On July 7, 2010, the 19 Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff a fourth and final extension of time to file objections to the 20 recommendation. On August 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requiring prison 21 officials to allow Plaintiff access to his legal materials for this case and access to legal services five 22 days a week.1 23 Plaintiff is not entitled unlimited access to the resources necessary to prepare optimal legal 24 filings. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996). However, Plaintiff must 25 be allowed access sufficient to enable him to prepare and file his response to the recommendation 26 that this action be dismissed. See id. This necessarily includes access to his legal material pertaining 27 1 28 Plaintiff is housed in the Administrative Segregation Unit, which entails even greater restrictions on Plaintiff’s movement and on Plaintiff’s ability to possess personal property. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to this action and likely includes at least minimal access to other available legal resources. 2 Plaintiff is not entitled to ideal conditions such as law library access five days a week until 3 objections to Plaintiff’s complete satisfaction have been completed, and the Court declines to request 4 such access. However, the Litigation Office is requested to look into the matter and facilitate 5 Plaintiff’s access to his legal material and other legal resources to the extent necessary to allow 6 Plaintiff to complete and file his objections.2 The Court will extend the objection deadline sixty days 7 to allow the Litigation Office sufficient time to address this matter and to allow Plaintiff time 8 thereafter to complete the task of drafting and filing his objections. 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part; 11 2. The Litigation Office is requested (1) to investigate Plaintiff’s ability to access his 12 legal material and to utilize the legal resources provided by the prison, and (2) to 13 facilitate Plaintiff’s access to his legal material and other available legal resources to 14 the limited extent necessary for Plaintiff to complete and file his objections; 15 3. The deadline to file objections is extended sixty (60) days from the date of service 16 of this order to allow the Litigation Office time to investigate and to allow Plaintiff 17 to thereafter complete and file his objections; and 18 4. The Clerk’s Office shall serve this order on the Litigation Office at CSATF. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: b9ed48 September 2, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 28 How access is best facilitated in light of Plaintiff’s housing status and other custody or classification factors is left to the sound discretion of prison officials. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
