Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01760/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01760-1/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELEAZAR VILLEGAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 00-1760 FCD GGH P

vs.

C.A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Currently pending in this action is defendants’ March 23, 2005 motion for summary

judgment, to which plaintiff has allegedly been unable to file an opposition. In the court’s order

filed on April 26, 2005, the undersigned, stated:

Although the pretrial conference and trial dates were vacated

pending adjudication of defendants’ March 23, 2003 motion for

summary judgment, PVSP prison officials should not

read the February 9, 2005 order so narrowly as to allow them to

prevent plaintiff from access to his stored legal property so that he

is unfairly hampered in his efforts to prepare an opposition to

the defendants’ motion. However, plaintiff must do more than

simply complain that he is being prevented entirely from access to

his stored legal property. He must submit evidence of having

sought access to the said legal property that shows when, by whom,

for what reason and for what duration he has been denied access.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for sanctions and a contempt order, setting forth

Case 2:00-cv-01760-FCD-GGH Document 85 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 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

2

the names of certain PVSP employees depriving him of access to his legal property and the

circumstances under which he claims that he is suffering retaliation from some prison officials

and continues to be deprived of access to the relevant legal property. The court’s patience is

being taxed by the apparently repeated failure of PVSP officials to comply with court orders with

respect to plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this action. The court is considering vacating

defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment and simply allowing this matter to proceed to

trial. Defendants must file their response within 10 days of the filed date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 6/22/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

vill1760.rsp

Case 2:00-cv-01760-FCD-GGH Document 85 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2