Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03193/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03193-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE MARTIN, H-90626, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

A. HEDGPETH, Warden, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 12-3193 CRB (PR)

ORDER

(Dkt. #145)

On October 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a second motion for

reconsideration of the court’s May 14, 2015 order granting

defendants’ motion for summary judgment claiming, among other

things, “newly discovered evidence.” Dkt. #138 at 2. 

On October 16, 2015, defendants filed a response to the

motion, but plaintiff replied by claiming that he cannot read it due

to his visual impairment and asking that the response be sent to

him in a larger type size.

On November 4, 2015, the court ordered defendants to serve

on plaintiff a new copy of their response (dkt. #141) using Times

New Roman type size 16, as the court is using in this order,

within seven days, and ordered plaintiff to file a reply within

seven days of receiving the new copy of defendants’ response.

Case 3:12-cv-03193-CRB Document 146 Filed 11/23/15 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

27

28 2

But as soon as plaintiff received the court’s November 4,

2015 order he penned and submitted a motion requesting that type

size 18, rather than 16, be used because it’s “a little larger.” Dkt.

#145 at 1. The motion (dkt. #145) is DENIED. Although type

size 18 (this is what type size 18 looks like) is slightly larger

than type size 16, this alone does not justify compelling

defendants to serve plaintiff again with yet another copy of their

response. Plaintiff will be afforded a final opportunity to file a

reply to defendants’ response to his motion for reconsideration

within seven days of this order. The court will not delay ruling on

plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration any further. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Martin, G.12-3193.or9.wpd

11/20/2015

Case 3:12-cv-03193-CRB Document 146 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 2