Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00633/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00633-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE JAMES JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.Z. SCOTLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-00633 TLN DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.

Defendants have filed a motion for relief from the provisions of Local Rule 230(l), on the 

grounds that plaintiff has been released from state prison and now resides in Sacramento, 

California.

Local Rule 230(l), entitled “Motions in Prisoner Actions,” provides:

All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed 

in actions where one party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria 

persona, shall be submitted upon the record without oral argument 

unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be 

noticed on the motion calendar. Opposition, if any, to the granting 

of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not 

more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the 

motion. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting 

of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, 

Case 2:12-cv-00633-TLN-DB Document 37 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 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

2

specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the 

responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no 

opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the 

granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of 

sanctions. The moving party may, not more than seven (7) days 

after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF, serve and file a 

reply to the opposition. All such motions will be deemed submitted 

when the time to reply has expired.

Id. If the court were to grant defendants’ motion, those provisions of Local Rule 230 that 

ordinarily apply in non-prisoner cases would henceforth apply to this action. In particular, the 

parties would gain the ability to calendar motions for hearing before the undersigned, oppositions 

to such motions would be due fourteen days prior to the hearing date, and replies, if any, would 

be due seven days prior to the hearing date.

Plaintiff has filed an opposition in which he argues that because the action commenced 

subject to those provisions of the Local Rules that govern civil actions brought by prisoners, this 

action should continue to proceed under those provisions. (ECF No. 34 at 1.) Plaintiff also 

points out that many state prisoners are re-incarcerated shortly after having been released from 

custody, and consequently argues that “[t]his Court has hundreds of pending prisoner cases, and it 

would create an enormous burden, with little benefit, to change the designation of a case, along 

with the resultant procedural changes, with each change of a litigant’s custody status.” (Id. at 2.)

In reply, defendants state that they seek relief only from the provisions of Local Rule 

230(l), and concede that if plaintiff returns to custody, Local Rule 230(l) would again govern this 

action.

Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the court determines defendants’

motion to be meritorious, and accordingly, finds that Local Rule 230(l) no longer applies to this 

action. In so deciding, the court recognizes that it may be difficult for plaintiff, given his 

disability and potential lack of access to transportation, to travel to the U.S. District Court in 

Sacramento for scheduled hearings in this case. If travel to the court poses any difficulty, 

plaintiff is advised that he may appear for hearings by telephone by following the undersigned’s 

Case Management Procedures, a copy of which will be served upon him together with this order. 

Alternately, if plaintiff does not wish to make an appearance at a hearing (whether in person or by 

Case 2:12-cv-00633-TLN-DB Document 37 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 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

3

telephone), he may file a notice so indicating with the court.

For all of the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for an order finding Local Rule 230(l) no longer applicable to this 

action (ECF No. 33) is granted.

2. Defendants’ motion nunc pro tunc for a two-day extension of time to July 8, 2015 to 

file their reply (ECF No. 35) is granted.1

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the undersigned’s Case 

Management Procedures on plaintiff.

Dated: July 17, 2015

DAD:10

jone0633.lr230

 

1 Defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s opposition was due on July 6, 2015. The reply was filed two 

days late, together with an accompanying motion nunc pro tunc for a two-day extension of time in 

which to file the reply. 

Case 2:12-cv-00633-TLN-DB Document 37 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 3