Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01828/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01828-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LYN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01828-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR

ACCESS TO THE COURT

(Docs. 35 and 36) 

Plaintiff David Lyn Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 24, 2007, plaintiff filed a

motion for summary judgment and a motion for access to the courts.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is premature as defendants have not yet been served

with process. Further, plaintiff’s bare, one paragraph motion falls short of what is required in

moving for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Local Rule 56-261. Plaintiff’s motion is denied

on those grounds.

In his motion for access to the courts, plaintiff asserts that certain remedies are necessary to

cure the deficiencies that result in plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se in this action.

The remedies listed by plaintiff include stay of action until release from prison, appointment of

counsel, transfer of plaintiff to court, telephonic appearances, use of written discovery, etc.

Currently there are no deadlines or motions pending before the Court. Plaintiff’s amended

complaint was filed on December 14, 2007, and this action was reassigned from the Honorable

Arthur L. Alarcon to the undersigned on January 3, 2008. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be

Case 1:06-cv-01828-LJO -GSA Document 44 Filed 02/15/08 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

screened by the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case in due course and plaintiff will receive further

instructions from the Court at that time. (Doc. 16, First Informational Order, ¶12.)

The case cited by plaintiff for the proposition that he is entitled to access to the courts,

Wantuch v. Davis, 32 Cal.App.4th 786 (1995), is not applicable in this instance. Wantuch involved

the dismissal of a case based on the incarcerated plaintiff’s failure to appear for a status conference.

The appellate court reversed the dismissal and instructed the trial court to take steps to secure

meaningful access to the courts for Mr. Wantuch. Potential remedies included those listed by

plaintiff in his motion. This Court is well aware of the plaintiff’s inability to appear in person or on

the telephone absent facilitation by the Court. Further, all motions are submitted on the papers.

Local Rule 78-230(m). At this juncture, there is nothing pending that requires court action in terms

of facilitating plaintiff’s access to the courts within the meaning of Wantuch. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and for access to the

courts, filed July 24, 2007, are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01828-LJO -GSA Document 44 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2