Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02284/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02284-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

BRIAN KEITH BRIM,

Petitioner,

v.

P. THOMPSON, WARDEN,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-2284 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se. On June 5, 2020, petitioner filed a 

motion to compel his institution to allow petitioner more time in the law library. Petitioner claims 

that he is only allowed to use the law library two to three hours every two to three weeks. 

Moreover, he claims that only three inmates use the law library, so he should be allowed more 

law library access.1 

On February 14, 2020, respondent filed an eight-page motion to dismiss that challenges 

the petition on jurisdictional grounds, as well as the substance of petitioner’s due process 

challenges under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Petitioner has been granted two 

extensions of time to oppose the motion; the first, for thirty days, and the second, for sixty days, 

1

 Petitioner also complains that prisoners use IBM typewriters that are dinosaurs. However, 

petitioner is advised that he is not required to typewrite pleadings. He may neatly handwrite 

them. 

Case 2:19-cv-02284-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/12/20 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

which expires on June 20, 2020. 

While the undersigned is sympathetic to petitioner’s reduced access to the law library 

given the current COVID-19 pandemic, petitioner fails to explain what additional research he 

needs to complete in order to oppose the motion to dismiss. The record reflects that petitioner 

was present during the prison disciplinary hearing, and therefore is familiar with the facts 

supporting his due process challenge. He has had almost four months in which to prepare his 

opposition. 

The undersigned finds that petitioner’s request for increased law library time is not wellsupported. In an abundance of caution, petitioner is granted additional time in which to file his 

opposition. However, petitioner is cautioned that no further extensions of time will be granted 

absent a showing of substantial cause. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to compel (ECF No. 16) is denied without prejudice; and

2. Petitioner is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file his 

opposition. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of substantial cause.

Dated: June 11, 2020

/brim2284.eot3

Case 2:19-cv-02284-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 2