Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01150-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT K. RICKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

G. LEVINE, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND MOTION FOR EXPLANATION 

OF LEGAL TERMINOLOGY AND 

PROCEEDINGS

(ECF No. 44)

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is related to Ricks v. 

Austria, et al., 1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM, and Ricks v. Onyeye, et al., 1:15-cv-1148-AWIBAM. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for explanation of legal 

terminology and proceedings. (ECF No. 44). Plaintiff notes that in a previous motion requesting 

the appointment for counsel, he contended that he lacked law library access and writing and 

mailing materials. Plaintiff further states that he continues to lack such access. Plaintiff also 

states he does not know what the terms “discovery” or “discovery procedures” mean, and does 

not know how to comply with discovery. Plaintiff further requests print-outs of any case law, 

rules, and terminology referenced in any court documents. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM Document 45 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

To Plaintiff request for information regarding discovery, the Court cannot give Plaintiff 

legal advice, which includes providing Plaintiff with further details on how to conduct discovery. 

Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or 

paralegal to pro se litigants. . . . Requiring district courts to advise a pro se litigant in such a 

manner would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.”) 

The Court has previously issued to Plaintiff a First Informational Order, on July 24, 2015 

(ECF No. 4), and an Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order, on December 15, 2016 (ECF 

No. 43). These orders contain the information provided to Plaintiff regarding applicable rules 

and requirements in this case, including on discovery. The Court notes that these orders are 

written in plain language intended for non-attorneys, and include both citations to and relevant 

information from applicable rules. Litigating this case in compliance with the relevant rules and 

the Court’s orders is solely the Plaintiff’s responsibility. 

Regarding Plaintiff’s contentions of a lack of law library access and writing and mailing 

materials, as the Court has previously noted in this action and in the other related cases, Plaintiff

has submitted many lengthy, handwritten filings citing various legal authorities. This includes 

the subject motion, and other filings made while Plaintiff was housed at his current institution. It 

appears, therefore, that Plaintiff has had some access to legal reference materials, and writing 

and mailing materials, despite his contentions. 

The Court generally does not send litigants free hard copies of rules or case law, and any 

deviation from that standard practice represents an exception which must be justified. Copies of 

the rules cited in the Court’s orders should be available to Plaintiff from the law library at his 

institution. His request to have print-outs provided to him will be denied.

Finally, in an abundance of caution and based on Plaintiff’s contentions of the lack of law 

library access at this time, the Court advises Plaintiff that he may request the assistance of the 

Litigation Coordinator at Plaintiff’s institution in ensuring that Plaintiff is afforded adequate 

opportunities to access the law library. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) 

(quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). 

Case 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM Document 45 Filed 01/13/17 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for 

explanation of legal terminology and proceeding, filed January 11, 2017 (ECF No. 44), is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2017 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM Document 45 Filed 01/13/17 Page 3 of 3