Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344-27/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY MORENO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1344 JAM EFB P

vs.

DAVID MEDINA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 8, 2011, plaintiff filed a document stating that his prison law library

lacks the legal materials listed in Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2000), and that

the library only has three computer terminals. Dckt. No. 94. The court ordered defendants to

respond to plaintiff’s allegations. Dckt. No. 96. 

Defendants responded and submitted the declaration of N. Olsen, the senior law librarian

at Kern Valley State Prison. Dckt. No. 97, Ex. A. Olsen declares that the library currently

possesses all of legal materials required by title 15, section 3124 of the California Code of

Regulations, which incorporates most of the requirements in Gilmore. Id. at 2. He declares that

Kern Valley State Prison has twenty inmate-accessible computers in the library and in the

administrative segregation units throughout the prison, which contain West publications,

1

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 98 Filed 11/14/11 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

including federal and state codes, case law, and digests. Id. The law library also has these

materials in print. Id.

Plaintiff has not explained what materials he needs in order to litigate his case that are

lacking from the law library. As noted in the court’s previous order, plaintiff has already filed

his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court granted plaintiff an

additional 30 days to file an amended opposition, but he did not file an amended opposition or

request additional time for doing so. As plaintiff has not explained how he has been or will be

prejudiced by the alleged lack of materials in the law library, his request that this court order the

prison to obtain more materials is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is deemed submitted. 

2. Plaintiff’s request that the court order Kern Valley State Prison to obtain more

materials for its law library is denied.

DATED: November 14, 2011.

2

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 98 Filed 11/14/11 Page 2 of 2