Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00887-9/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

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

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

and request to stay the scheduling order. Plaintiff alleged that on March 25, 2006, he was placed

in administrative segregation (ad seg) after being accused of threatening a correctional officer. 

Plaintiff alleged that he did not have access to his legal property.

On May 11, 2006, the court issued an order construing plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief as a request for a protective order. The court ordered plaintiff to inform the

court within twenty days whether he had been granted access to his legal property regarding this

action.

On June 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to the May 11, 2006, order. Plaintiff

stated that on May 16, 2006, he was released from ad seg. Plaintiff stated that he was issued all

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 57 Filed 08/03/06 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

of his legal property but for one box, which contained some of his papers regarding the instant

action. Plaintiff stated that he was told that this box was in the ad seg property room but there

was no current regular ad seg property officer. 

On June 21, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to inform the court within ten days

whether he had received his missing box of legal property. Ten days passed and plaintiff did not

respond to the June 21, 2006, order. Accordingly, the court presumes that plaintiff has received

all of his legal property regarding the instant action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 17, 2006, motion

for injunctive relief, construed as a motion for a protective order, is denied.

DATED: 8/2/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

high887.po

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 57 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2